Vol. IX. 

 igio 



\ Correspondence. 26 1 



almost every week. The bulk are destined to spend a short and 

 unhappy life in small cages. 



The fact has been stated in the public press, both by adver- 

 tisement and news paragraph, that certain islands in Bass Strait 

 have been proclaimed sanctuaries where sea-fowl may (yachting 

 parties willing) breed undisturbed. What I and others would 

 like to ascertain, if possible, is what steps are taken to enforce 

 the proclamation, as the mere fact of the islands being gazetted 

 has no deterrent effect on parties in sailing craft, who, when on a 

 holiday cruise, destroy everything that moves, and call it 

 " sport." The above stricture does not apply to all yachting 

 parties, but to many. I had ocular demonstration of that of 

 which I speak only last Christmas. 



The third matter on which I desire to speak is in connection 

 with the proposed A.O.U. " Check List." As one who has 

 taken up ornithology as a pleasant and instructive hobby to 

 follow in one's spare moments — and I think the majority of the 

 members of the A.O.U. do the same — I sincerely hope the 

 committee will not allow their zeal to get the better of their 

 discretion regarding priority. Priority is all very well in its 

 way, but it can be carried too far. In T/ie Emu (vol. vi., p. 28) 

 a short extract is given of some remarks on " Priority in 

 Nomenclature " by the President of the Bavarian Ornithological 

 Society. The first sentence of the extract reads : — " He 

 believed " (runs the report) " that all these changings of long- 

 established names, even when the alteration was justifiable, 

 should be most rigorously guarded against, as the greatest 

 confusion would be the only result." This is the case in a nut- 

 shell. If my memory serves me right, the senior editor of T/ie 

 Emu has expressed himself in even stronger terms concerning 

 the action of modern makers of ornithological books and hand- 

 lists in raking up the dead and forgotten past, so far as obsolete 

 names are concerned, in search of cheap notoriety. The bulk of 

 ornithological students (using the word in its widest sense) have 

 neither time nor inclination to unlearn much already learnt 

 regarding scientific designations. The nomenclature as em- 

 ployed in the British Museum Catalogue, and on which I pre- 

 sume the 1898 A.A.A.S. "Vernacular List" was founded, is good 

 enough for most of us, and with which we have become familiar 

 until names once outlandish and strange have become " familiar 

 in our mouths as household words " almost. If priority were 

 carried to its logical conclusion in everything we should be 

 landed in some queer messes. If Graucalus is to be Coracina, 

 why not " New Holland " for " Australia," or " Van Diemen's 

 Land " for " Tasmania," as according to the law of priority the 

 former names should stand ? I could multiply instances of 

 reversions, but these illustrations will suffice. — I am, &c., 



Launceston, 28/1/10. FRANK M. LITTLER. 



