1914 J Mathews, Some Binary Generic Names. 91 



Lucar must again come into use in place of Dumetella S. D. W. 

 1837, as that name is used in the A. O. U. Check-List, 3rd. Ed., p. 

 1910. 



Calandra at this place I consider a nomen nudum. 



Ruticilla might be also thus construed but I believe it comes into 

 consideration from another binary source at somewhere near this 

 date. 



Luscinia might be again classed as a nomen nudum but the 

 reference to "Die Amerikanische Nachtigall Catesby" suggested 

 its introduction in some of the editions of Catesby 's work. 



Morinella of course falls as a synonym of Arenaria Brisson 1760. 



Petrella, however, appears to displace Daption, Stephens 1826 as 

 used in the A. 0. U. Check-List, 3rd Ed., p. 51, 1910. 



This last name is the only one that directly concerns my own 

 studies in ornithology, namely that of Australia, and in order to 

 make sure of this matter I forwarded the book here noted to Dr. 

 C. W. Richmond, Secretary of the Ornithological Committee on 

 Nomenclature, desiring his opinion upon my conclusions. He has 

 written me, that, after conferring with Dr. L. Stejneger, one of the 

 members of the International Commission on Nomenclature, the 

 only conclusion possible was that these generic names were duly 

 proposed and regularly introduced by a writer who was binary 

 though not binomial. He also desired me to note that this edition 

 of Bartram's Travels also appeared as Vol. X of the Magazin von 

 merkwiirdigen neuen Reisebeschreibungen. 



I would here state that the above notes are merely fragmentary 

 in order to draw attention to the work mentioned and that further 

 detailed investigation of this work by one familiar with American 

 Ornithology might reveal some name I have overlooked. 



My own researches lead me to suggest that the apparently ill- 

 advised admission of "binary" generic names will lead to such an 

 upsetting of names that the only means of escape will be the recog- 

 nition of a List of Nomina Conservanda: such a result has been 

 recently scoffed at by good workers, but these were undoubtedly 

 unaware of the many binary writers to be taken into consideration, 

 the present instance being only one out of many. 



The rejection of "binary" writers, as opposed to binomial ones, 

 would have obviated discussion and made more stable our present 

 nomenclature. 



