408 Recent Literature. [jiUv 



in the names applied to American birds, published a Code of Nomenclature 

 and a Check-List. The tenth edition of Linnaeus's ' Systema Naturae ' was 

 adopted as the starting point, trinomials were employed for the designation 

 of subspecies, tautonymic names were admitted and a few other principles 

 then looked upon as revolutionary were put into practice. ' The Ibis ' 

 in reviewing the publication regretted that the adoption of the tenth instead 

 of the twelfth edition of Linnaeus alone " disposes of the last chance of a 

 scientific language in common with out brethren across the water." As 

 our British friends had not been very successful in establishing a scientific 

 language that had proved common even to the inhabitants of the British 

 Isles, American ornithologists did not take this prediction too much to 

 heart but looked forward with confidence to a time, that they felt sure 

 must come, when the principles adopted in the A. O. U. list would become 

 the basis for a list of British bii'ds. For many years there seemed little 

 chance of their hopes being realized, even though they had the satisfaction 

 of seeing their Code almost in its entirety endorsed by the International 

 Zoological Commission. Recently however, there have been encouraging 

 signs, trinomials have appeared on the pages of ' The Ibis ', and here and 

 there time honored names of British birds have been ruthlessly overthrown 

 in order to comply with the rules of the Code. It was therefore with more 

 than ordinary interest that we received notice of the appearance of a new 

 Hand-List of British birds, and with the volume before us we began to 

 turn the pages with much speculation as to what they might disclose. 



The motto on the very first page was encouraging " Nomenclature is 

 only ' a means, not an end,' but without uniformity it is a confusion." How 

 the late Dr. Elliott Coues would have relished this improvement upon the 

 A. O. U. motto! The introduction clearly sets forth the lack of uniformity 

 that has prevailed in the nomenclature of British birds, and makes an ad- 

 mirable plea for everyone to help in upholding " the strict letter of the law 

 [as set forth in the International Code] rather than his own convenience, 

 likes and dislikes." How rigidly the authors have lived up to their declara- 

 tion is seen in the acceptance without a protest of the Brissonian genera, 

 in accordance with a ruling of the Commission, although at least one of 

 the authors was and no doubt still is bitterly opposed to recognizing them. 



Turning to the list itself we see that our hopes have been fully reahzed; 

 indeed we could well believe that we had the last edition of the A. O. U. 

 Check-List before us! Trinomials appear on nearly every page and not 

 only is the binomial name given at the head of each set of subspecies but 

 it is repeated in cases where the species has not been subdivided, thus 

 presenting absolute consistency which the A.,0. U. Check-List does not. 



As an example of the style and typography of the names we may quote 

 from pages 41-42. 



CERTHIA FAMILIARIS. 



83. Certhia famiharis brittanica Ridg. — the British tree-creeper. 



84. Certhia familiaris familiaris L. — the northern tree-creeper. 



