PRWCIFl BS, CA1 >MMKM).vn< 45 



CANON \\YI1. Wlu-n ;nis is raised to full generic 



rank, its name is to be retained as that of the group thus i.: 

 In like manner, names fiist proposed 01 u-cd in a subsp^ 



:ble in ease the subspecies be raised to full specific 

 .ng, and are to have priority over a new name for the sub- 

 vd. 



This ( names which arc otherwise tenable, 



ulv published, and arc not synonyms. 



CA* .VI II. When i; bccom, -sary to divide a 



composite species or subspecies, the old specific or stibspccific 



is to 1 1 for that form or portion of the group to 



which it wa^ first applied, or to which it primarily related. If 



rtained, the name as fixed by the 

 is to be retained. 



This is simply the extension of the- rules already provided 

 rmination -pecies which are composite in char- 



tO which the general principles of elimination already set forth are 

 He. 



XXIX, When s is separated into subspecies, 



or when spec: uisly supposed to be distinct are found to 



j-ade. the earliest name applied to any form of the group 

 shall be t ific name of the whole group, and shall also be 



retained as ti agnation of the particular form to 



which it was originally applied. In other words, the rule of pri- 



is to be strictly enforced in respect to subspecific names. 



RIMAKKS. While this principle is generally recognized, one ornithologi- 

 cal writer of prominence has introduced the practice of connecting the 

 or subspecies in accordance with the supposed nearest 



allinitiv of priority of names. Such disregard 



of the law of priority, however, can lead only to instability and confusion, 



without any adequately compensating advantages. If we knew beyond ques- 



>e original or stock-form of a group of conspccies, and the 



vution of the various imperfectly , ,1 forms, it would be 



possible to show the genetic relation of such forms in our nomenclature, and 



were nomenclature classification some gain might thus result. But since 



1 Mr. Henry vSeebohm. 



