^'"^912"^^] Correspondence. 131 



field, is worthy of a more complimentary statement than the one penned by 

 our critic to the effect that the bulletin on Shorebirds contains in addition 

 to official data "some reference to the Uterature." 

 Very truly youi's, 



Henry W. Henshaw. 

 WasUnglon, D. C, Nov. 20, 1911. 



Mathews's Notes on Nomenclature, 



To THE Editor of 'The Auk': — 



Dear Sir: — In the last number of 'The Auk,' I have been granted an 

 extended review of my notes on Nomenclature pubUshed in the Novit. 

 Zool., Vol. XVII, pp. 492-503, Vol. XVIII, pp 1-22, Emu, Vol. X, pp. 

 317-326, and Vol. XI, pp. 52-58. That review will be widely read by 

 American ornithologists whereas my original papers wiU not have such an 

 audience. Inasmuch, therefore, as I feel my views have been somewhat 

 vigorously treated, I would claim space for a short defence of my papers. 



The review is principally a defence of the Brissonian genera without 

 recourse to the refutation of the facts I produced against their acceptation. 

 I implicitly obey the "Laws formulated by the International Congress of 

 Zoologists," and the reviewer wrote: "Instead of accepting, however, the 

 ruling of the Commission on the meaning of its own Code he proceeds to 

 argue that the Commission is wrong"; and then: "It is hard to reconcile 

 this action with his repeatedly professed absolute adherence to 'the laws 

 formulated by the International Congress of Zoologists.'" 



The reviewer has confused the Laws with the Opinions rendered by the 

 Commission. I have never questioned the Laws and "the Commission 

 has no legislative power." Refer to Opinion 16, where after nine pages of 

 discussion the only cases where an Opinion was necessary were left to be 

 decided by the first author who had occasion to use them, and the sentence 

 passed "If any author attempts to construe the cases under the present 

 ruling the burden of proof to show he is justified in this procedure rests 

 upon him." 



However the reviewer further wrote: "As a matter of fact, it is perfectly 

 evident that the Commission intentionally employed the term binary for 

 the purpose of conserving genera established by non-binomial authors of 

 dates subsequent to 1758," yet carefully refrained from noticing my appeal 

 to the Laws which I here again quote : 



"Article 25. The valid name of a genus or species can be only that name 

 under which it was first designated on the condition : 



"a. That this name was published and accompanied by an indication, 

 or a definition or a description ; and 



" b. That the author has applied the principles of binary nomenclature. 



"Article 26. The tenth edition of Linne's 'Systema naturae,' 1758, is 

 the work which inaugurated the consistent general application of the binary 



