132 Correspondence. [jmi. 



nomenclature in zoology. The date, 1758, therefore, is accepted as the 

 starting point of zoological nomenclature and of the law of priority." 



Inasmuch as the meaning of the word binary, here first used instead of 

 binomial, is explained by the context it can have none other than what 

 I have claimed. I cannot imagine the arguments whereby the reviewer 

 could make it "perfectly evident, as a matter of fact," to be otherwise; 

 from the facts which I have here quoted, I cannot admit any other meaning 

 of binary than binomial and until Ailicle 26 is altered I must maintain the 

 position I have taken up. It has been suggested by supporters of the 

 Commission's Opinions that, my arguments, on the facts, being unanswer- 

 able, this course should be adopted. Is further discussion necessary? 

 The untenability of the Commission's Opinion is thereby admitted. 



With regard to the reviewer's remarks: " Unfortunately for Mr. Mathews 

 his statements in regard to Brisson and Colymhus are erroneous." "If 

 Brisson's genera continue to be used, as they certainly will be, Podiceps is 

 properly to be construed as a homonym of Colymhus (Brisson ex Linne)." 



Whether my statements be regarded as erroneous or not depends upon 

 whether they are criticised from the standpoint of opinion or of facts. I 

 was only dealing with the latter and herewith point out the difference 

 between the reviewer's opinion and facts. Reference to Brisson, Vol. VI, 

 p. 33, does not lead us to conclude that Brisson used Colymbus ex Linne, 

 and on p. 34 Brisson calls La Grebe Colymbus. By application of a method 

 of tautonymy this could be accepted as the bird reckoned as type of Bris- 

 son's genus and accordingly the one from which Brisson formed his generic 

 name. Now the first reference under that species reads Colymbus Moehr. 

 Avi. Gen. 77, and no mention is made of Linne though ten references are 

 given. 



Now, whose statements are erroneous as to the origin of Brisson's 

 Colymbus, the reviewer's or mine? It would be most interesting reading 

 for me to see the reviewer's justification (on facts) of the statement 

 "Brisson did it [subdivided a Linnean genus] in a large number of cases, 

 intentionally and with good effect, adopting most of them in a restricted 

 sense." 



Allen, when collating the Brissonian and Linnean Genera (Bull. Amer. 

 Mus. Nat. Hist., Vol. XXVIII, pp. 317-335, 1910), noted (p. 319) that 

 Brisson oidy had Linne's 10th Edition after four volumes (out of six) of his 

 work had been printed; he could not have subdivided many of the Linnean 

 genera under those conditions, unless genera introduced before 1758 are 

 admitted. An examination of those two last volumes does not reveal, 

 to me, facts in support of the reviewer's statement. 



The reviewer notes: " Marila Oken is rejected in favour of Nyroca 

 Fleming on the assumption that Oken's bird genera of 1817 are untenable." 



It is pecuhar that though the A. O. U. Check -List, p. 74, includes Marila 

 Oken 1817, and p. 76, Clangida Oken 1817, on p. 79, Somateria Leach 1819 

 is used though there is the prior Eider Oken 1817. On p. 80 Oidemia 

 Fleming 1822 is retained though there is the prior Macreuse Oken 1817; 



