Recent Literature. 245 



but we have little sympathy with the recent upheaval in this respect, 

 nor do we believe that the names at present advocated will prove more 

 stable than those which have preceded them. Stejneger has latelv 

 shown* that neither Coues nor Ridgway reached the foundations ; and 

 doubtless some one of an equally enquiring mind and with an imagination 

 still better adapted to interpreting ancient descriptions of uncertain 

 application, will yet come forward and work fresh havoc. The trouble 

 with this kind of investigation is that sufficient regard is rarely paid to the 

 rule that a description must be clearly defined, and that "definition prop- 

 erly implies a distinct exposition of essential characters." We have not 

 forgotten Mr. Allen's eloquent protest against the adoption of certain 

 Bartramian names, and there can be no doubt that his objections will apply 

 equally well to the descriptions of many other earlj' authors. Moreover, 

 while we distinctly' disclaim any personal application of such a thought, 

 we cannot help believing that if the practice of giviiig the authority for 

 the arrangement of ttatnes were discontinued, there would be less of this 

 meddling with nomenclature. At all events the evil is a terrible one, and 

 it must be stopped, even if the whole code has to be thrown overboard and 

 a new one instituted. So extreme a course, however, is probably unneces- 

 sary, for some simple statute of limitation can doubtless be devised which 

 will answer all the required ends. Dr. Coues's recent suggestion,! that 

 fifty years of imchallenged usage shall fix a name forever, is an excellent 

 one, but the time of probation might, with advantage, be reduced to 

 twenty-five years. Such a provision, with one requiring all proposed 

 changes to be referred to a tribunal composed of not less than three 

 prominent ornithologists, who might meet for the purpose at intervals 

 of say once in four years, would effectually prevent any further tampering 

 with a system which should be sacred, but which has become a mere 

 football. 



With respect to genera we are sorry to notice that Dr. Coues has aban- 

 doned certain old-time principles and adopted many of the sub-divisions 

 which he rejected in the edition of 1S73. Chief among these are Actodro- 

 mas, Arquatella, Pelidtia., and Ancylochiliis, in Tringa; Symf hernia and 

 Rhyacoj>hilHS in Totanus; Herodias, Garzetta. Hydranassa, Dichro- 

 manassa^ Florida, and Butorides in Ardea, and Chro'icocephalus in 

 Larus. Titrdus, however, is retained for all the Thrushes of the 

 sub-family Tnrdince, and Vireo. in its euphonious simplicity, stands 

 for all the Vireos. While we would not be understood as condemn- 

 ing all the above changes, we consider the majority of them arbitrary, 

 and hence uncalled for. The ever increasing tendency to institute new 

 genera on differences of structure which in other classes of Vertebrates 

 would be considered no more than well-marked specific characters, is one 

 of the banes of modern ornithology. Our systematists seem to have lost 

 sight of the uses for which genera were primarily intended. Of this 



* Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., June, 1882, pp. 28-43. 

 t This Bulletin, Vol. VII, pp. 178, 179, 



