° 1912 "J Correspondence. 133 



and p. 47 Anous Stephens 1826 though there is the prior Noddi Oken 1817. 

 Why this inconsistency? I have consistently rejected all the Oken names. 

 If they are tenable why did not the A. O. U. include all, in the Check-List? 

 Were they in doubt as to the Latin form of the neglected names? 



The reviewer further notes : ' ' CEnanihe Vieillot is accepted for the Wheat- 

 ears on the ground that the type of CEnanthe rested on tautonymy {Mota- 

 cilla oenanthe Linn.) before a type was fixed for Motacilla." This is a 

 quaint summary of my note regarding the nomenclature of the Wheatears 

 and Chats and scarcely in accordance with the facts. 



The other matters wherein the reviewer differs from myself can be 

 regarded as matters of opinion upon which I prefer to leave myself to the 

 judgment of the succeeding generations. It is being proven every day that 

 in science right will right itself, and I am simply working for the advance- 

 ment of the science J. love, that of Ornithology. 



Gregory M. Mathews. 

 Langley Mount, 



Watford, England. 

 IS/ll/U 



[The reviewer of Mr. Mathews's papers on the Nomenclature of Birds 

 regrets that his criticisms of certain opinions held by their author has given 

 him cause for a reply, inasmuch as the reviewer fails to see wherein he was 

 at any point in serious error. Respecting Mr. Mathews's position in the 

 matter of Brissonian genera, the reviewer is quite content to let him have 

 the last word until the International Commission has formallj^ rendered an 

 opinion on their availability and the Congress itself has either adopted or 

 rejected it, and then to abide by the decision of the Congress. 



The question of Podiceps and Colymhus is, however, a separate issue which 

 can be discussed wholly on the basis of facts. As Mr. Mathew truly says: 

 "Whether my statements be regarded as erroneus or not depends upon 

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

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

 the reviewer's opinion and facts. Reference to Brisson. . . .[etc., see 

 Mathews above]. Now whose statements are erroneous as to the origin of 

 Colymhus [i. e., whether from Linne, 1758, or from some earlier source], the 

 reviewer's or mine? " He says further: "It would be interesting reading 

 forme to see the reviewer's justification (or facts) of the statement 'Brisson 

 did it (subdivided a Linnean genus) in a large number of cases, intention- 

 ally and with good effect, adopting most of them in a restricted sense.' " 



The reviewer will here endeavor to give Mr. Mathews this "interesting 

 reading," taking the case of Colymhus first, and then a few other genera, — 

 all from Brisson's last two volumes, which were printed after he received 

 Linne's ed. 10 of the 'Systema Naturae,' — which Brisson subdivided 

 "intentionally and with good effect." 



First as to the origin of Colymhus. Colymhus is essentially the same 

 group, with the same name, in Linne's ed. 6 (1748) as in his ed. 10 (1758), 



