^°^- ^^"1 General Notes. 2 I 7 



1903 J / 



facts were as alleged. In the same number of ' The Auk' (p. 131) the 

 proposed change was endorsed by the A. O. U. Committee on Nomen- 

 clature (Eighth Supplement), and is of course adopted in Mr. Ridgway's 

 'Birds of North and Middle America' (Part II, p. 570). 



In 'The Auk' for April, 1S99 (XVI, p. 185), Mr. Oberholser called 

 attention to the ruling of the A. O. U. Committee on this case, and 

 showed that in accordance with this ruling the name of the House Finch 

 would be Carpodactis mexicanus obscurus (McCall) instead of C. in. fron- 

 talis (Say), on the ground that Sa^-'s name Fringilla frontalis (1823) was 

 preoccupied by a Fringilla frontalis Vieillot (1817). Mr. Oberholser 

 evidently accepted the Committee's ruling on the Dendroica ccerulea case 

 with reservation, which he says "involves an interpretation of Canon 

 XXXIII of the A. O. U. Code of Nomenclature to which little if any 

 attention seems to have been called." He continues : "It appears advis- 

 able to raise this question, inasmuch as it affects the validity of some 

 other current names; and this the more as in regard to it there seems to 

 be neither unanimity of opinion nor uniformity of practice. Briefly 

 stated, it is this : in considering the tenability of specific names, so far 

 as preoccupation is concerned, shall any account be taken of homonyms 

 which are mere combinations, /. e., not original descriptions? To illus- 

 trate: Motacilla ccerulea of Linnseus, 1766, was called Sylvia ccerulea by 

 Latham in 1790, — evidently a simple transfer of Linnaeus's species to 

 another genus. Now, does this Sylvia ccerulea of Latham, 1790, preclude 

 the use of Sylvia ccerulea Wilson, 1810, for another and widely different 

 species, the former being now a Polioptila, and the latter a Dendroica} 

 Canon XXXIII is apparently quite explicit upon this point, its text being 

 as follows : ' .. . .a specific or subspecific name is to be changed when it 

 has been applied to some other species of the same genus, or used previ- 

 ously in combination with the same generic name.' The phrase, ' or used 

 previously in combination with the same generic name,' seems to leave 

 no doubt of its meaning ; and a strictly literal interpretation of this clause 

 will treat alike all combinations, whether or not they happen to be those 

 of original descriptions." 



I have quoted Mr. Oberholser at length, for the reason that he has 

 stated the case so fully and concisely. The phraseology of that portion 

 of Canon XXXIII quoted by Mr. Oberholser is open to his constrviction 

 of it, and apparently to no other. Yet that no such ruling was intended 

 by the Committee I am sure ; for (if I may be pardoned a seemingly 

 egotistical reminiscence) I may say that I formulated Canon XXXIII, 

 and the explanatory remarks under it, and I am sure that nothing was 

 further from my intention, or that of the Committee, than to enact a 

 provision open to a construction so at variance with general usage in such 

 matters, and with the practices of the Committee, previously (as individ- 

 uals) and since. The two pages of ' remarks ' under Canon XXXIII discuss 

 all phases of the subject except this, and clearly show that the Committee 

 had in mind only homonyms given as names to species described as neAV, 



