1^8 Correspondence. \ ^"V" 



clature." This is good advice, but unnecessary. I have already 

 dealt fairly completely, and, I hoped, satisfactorily, with both 

 matters in The Emu, but, apparently, my efforts have been left 

 unstudied by the authors, though they were considered worthy 

 of special distinction by extra-Australian scientific workers. I 

 do not feel inclined to go over the ground again, but would refer 

 the authors to my published papers, which would have made 

 many of the queries propounded in Messrs. Campbell and Barnard's 

 paper unnecessary. To instance, they refer to my disusage of 

 Casuarius australis, Wall. It is recorded in my List (quoted by 

 them) that the name was unavailable, as it had been previously 

 used in another sense. If the writers did not understand such 

 a simple nomenclatural question they should have postponed 

 criticism altogether on such matters until they had mastered the 

 first rules connected with the subject. In a similar case they 

 are amazed at my rejection of Megalitrus galactotes, Temminck, 

 proposed for an African bird, urging that Gould's misusage of 

 the name claimed acceptance. Such ignorance of the laws 

 governing nomenclature simply prohibits any discussion, and it 

 seems very urgent that these authors should not attempt to wade 

 into " the technicalities of nomenclature." It is impossible to 

 deal with the many little queries of like quality put forward, as 

 the majority are answered beforehand in my List. If these 

 petty and querulous items had not been interpellated, there could 

 have been nothing but praise for the paper, and, notwithstanding 

 the above remarks, I consider this to be one of the most helpful 

 papers from the systematic viewpoint we have recently had. 

 The field notes are comparatively scant, which is to be regretted, 

 as the field observations of such experienced workers as the 

 authors should have been valuable, and worthy of publication. 

 Certainly, they would not have displayed the lack of knowledge 

 of the subject treated as their nomenclatural notes do. A good 

 instance of how noi to write ornithological results may be cited. 

 On page 22 they wrote : — " We had the opportunity of proving 

 that Ramsay's Eopsaltria inornata and Hartert's Pachycephala 

 peninsula (both shown on the Union's " Check-list," p. 65) are 

 the same species." No proof is then put forward, and as the 

 identity of these species has been recorded and accepted some 

 years ago, their statement reads strangely, and cannot be under- 

 stood. 



A matter of broader interest is brought under review on page 17 

 by the note : — " Bee-eaters have been observed passing to and 

 from New Guinea during migration. How can it be possible, 

 then, that there are two races of these birds in Australia, as 

 Mathews infers ? " There is no evidence that all the Bee-eaters 

 that are met with in Australia pass through New Guinea, which 

 is the suggestion of the authors, and it is tolerably certain that 

 the western birds do not. Consequently, there is no reason why 

 the eastern and western forms should not be sub-specifically 

 different. As the subject is referred to more than once in the 



