Vol i5? in ] Correspondence. 123 



servative, and is satisfied often to combine into one genus a number of 

 groups that many, possibly most, other ornithologists would keep apart 

 as good genera; and even in other less heterogeneous groups, they would 

 sometimes consider it desirable in classification to recognize certain sub- 

 divisions by name as subgenera. Even to drop subgeneric names from 

 species designations would come far from bringing nomenclature to the 

 standard adopted in 'Die Vogel der palaarktischen Fauna.' 



As Dr. Hartert admits his "very strong tendency to combine allied forms 

 as subspecies," it is perhaps not fair to criticise his conclusions without 

 equal opportunity to go over the ground; yet one's experience in similar 

 lines of research is apt to give an impression of the probabilities in such 

 matters. 



Perhaps the term "eccentricities" is rather too severe to apply to any 

 features of the great work now under mention. But there is one point 

 that, to say the least, seems a little extraordinary, namely, the disregard 

 of the rule adopted by all codes, from the first ' B. A. Code' to date, that 

 adjectival specific names must agree in gender with the generic name with 

 which they are associated. For one author to rebel against such a general 

 consensus of opinion, even on the plea of conserving stability in nomen- 

 clature, is to introduce a jarring element not at all conducive to either 

 harmony or uniformity. From Linne down to the last International 

 Code, generic names have been construed as substantives in the nomina- 

 tive singular, with which it has been universally ruled that adjectival 

 specific names must agree in gender. Dr. Hartert's rebellion against this 

 rule may be considered as approaching 'eccentricity'; at least this is one 

 of the points I had in mind in using this, perhaps rather unfortunate, term. 



Closely akin to this is the retention of names etymologically the same, 

 if differing in orthography by a single letter, dependent even upon gender. 

 But, 'more's the pity,' my friend Hartert is not the only aggressor in this 

 matter, which is likely to become, or perhaps is already, the most serious 

 bone of contention in nomenclatorial questions. We had hoped for his 

 influence on the side of stability, and therefore feel deeply grieved that he 

 should have espoused a principle, which, if even partially adopted — for 

 we cannot expect a general stampede to an innovation so subversive of 

 long accepted rules of nomenclature — will do more to upset stability than 

 any other conceivable practice. 



Again, since the promulgation of the British Association Code of Nom- 

 enclature in 1846, Brisson's genera have been almost universally accepted 

 as tenable. Possibly a few authors during the last fifty years have de- 

 clined to recognize them, but they have been very few in comparison with 

 those who have been willing to follow in this matter the ruling of the ' B. A. 

 Code. ' When therefore the author of ' Die Vogel der palaarktischen Fauna ' 

 declines to accept Brisson's genera, and makes bold to state that in his 

 opinion they are not genera at all, such action seems to come very near the 

 border line of 'eccentricity.' 



For more than half a century zoologists have recognized the importance 



