496 Recent Literature. Loct. 



other changes, the number of genera is greatly reduced (in the paper in 

 ' The Emu ') by omission as unnecessary, and others, as well as many 

 species, as being extralimital. The greater part of the Brissonian genera 

 are retained, but are accredited to later authors. Emended spellings are 

 also now rejected. 



In Part I of his paper in the ' Novitates ' Mr. Mathews assumed that 

 " binary " as used in the International Code of Nomenclature is synony- 

 mous with " binomial." Before the publication of his Part II he had 

 received the ' Opinions rendered by the International Commission on 

 Zoological Nomenclature ' (Opinions 1-25), from which it became evident 

 to him that " ' binary ' has an altogether different meaning " from binomi- 

 al. 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 that ' binary,' according to dictionaries, is " absolutely equiva- 

 lent to binomial," and proceeds to affirm his rejection of Brissonian 

 genera! It is hard to reconcile this action with his repeatedly professed 

 absolute adherence to " the laws formulated by the International Congress 

 of Zoologists." As a matter of fact, it is perfectly evident that the Com- 

 mission intentionally employed the term binary for the purpose of con- 

 serving genera established by non-binominal authors of dates subsequent 

 to 1758 as shown by their ruling (Opinion 20) on the genera of Gronow, 

 and citation of Brisson under Strix (Opinion 16, pp. 33 and 38). Further- 

 more, these rulings foreshadow that if the genera of Brisson are ever brought 

 before the Commission for arbitration their availability will be sustained. 



Mr. Mathews, in ignoring Brisson as an author to be reckoned with, 

 introduces confusion in questions of nomenclature that extend beyond 

 the substitution of later authorities for Brisson's genera, as in the case of 

 Colymbus and Podiceps, Catarractes, Penguinus and Calharacta; Glareola 

 and Trachelia; Carbo and Phalacrocorax; Hypsibates and Himanlopus; 

 Nisus and Accipiter; Curvirostra and Loxia. Unfortunately for Mr. 

 Mathews, his statements in regard to Brisson and Colymbus are erroneous, 

 for he says: " Brisson independently introduced Colymbus for the Grebes: 

 he never subdivided a Linnean genus; he used the same names as Linne, 

 often with different significations, as for instance Mergus, which he used 

 for the Divers though Linne had utilized it for the Mergansers." It is 

 quite true that Brisson used a number of Linne's generic names in a different 

 sense from that in which Linne had employed them, as did nearly every 

 systematic writer of the latter half of the eighteenth century. During 

 this period, and even for the quarter century following, each author took 

 the liberty of doing as he pleased in matters of nomenclature; for the happy 

 thought of a " law of priority " had not then taken form. But it is entirely 

 erroneous to assert that Brisson " never subdivided a Linnean genus," 

 for he did it in a large number of cases, intentionally and with good effect, 

 adopting most of them in a restricted sense, but failing to conserve the 

 names of a few of them. If Brisson's genera continue to be used, as they 

 certainly will be, Podiceps is properly to be construed as a homonym of 



