Letters, Extracts, Notices, i^c. 323 



If the question arises, why, in spite of our better know- 

 ledge nowadays, the authorities of museums continue to 

 mount their birds, we must answer, I believe, that it is 

 mostly done without any special reason, partly because it has 

 been always done before, and partly because the curators 

 do not consider or understand the value of type specimens. 



The next point I beg to refer to touches, like the former, 

 upon a question of principle. I refer to p. 131, where the 

 Editor states that I am Avrong in following the Americans 

 and Dr. Reichenow in resuscitating the name of Micropus 

 for the Swifts. I knew I should not obtain unanimous appro- 

 bation for using the term Micropus, but I followed my prin- 

 ciples, and so I shall do until I am convinced tliat the other 

 way is better. One of my principles is that I — following the 

 American Code and the Rules of Nomenclature agreed to by 

 the German Ornithological Society, for which I fought per- 

 sistently at three meetings, at Berlin (1890), at Frankfort 

 (1891) , and soon after atBudapesth — alter a generic name only 

 if it has been previously used in zoology, but not if it has been 

 used only in botany. Therefore I employed the name of Mi- 

 cropus, although I knew it was used in botany before. As I 

 said, this is a question of principle, and I know that many do 

 not agree with me, but I acted reasonably, like the Americans 

 and the creators of the German Ornithological Society^s 

 " Rules of Nomenclature.'^ Inconveniences and misunder- 

 standings in scientific writings can hardly occur if my course 

 is followed, but how enormous is the demand that ornitho- 

 logists should also hunt up the botanical works and records, 

 and have at hand all the latest botanical literature for refer- 

 ences ! Where is this possible, except at places like the 

 British Museum? 



The other reason why I should have avoided the term Mi- 

 cropus — i. e., because it had already been used in the B. M. 

 Catalogue for a genus of Timeliidse (or rather, as I should 

 say, Brachypodidse) — I can by no means submit to. Mi- 

 cropms, in vol. iv., Avas undoubtedly employed by mistake, 

 because the name was dated 1837, while Micropus had been 

 used for the Swifts in 1810, as I have pointed out in the 



