430 Mr. H. Seebohm on certain Points in 



the rules to suit the cases which have been left unprovided 

 for in the Stricklandian code, so as to carry out, as far as 

 possible, the great objects which that excellent reformer 

 aimed at. 



The principal objects of a code of nomenclature ought to 

 be the following : 



1. To ensure that every genus and every species of bird 

 shall have a definite name, about which there can be no man- 

 ner of doubt as to the exact genus or species intended to be 

 discriminated by such name. 



2. To make as little change as possible in the names of 

 birds, and to effect the adoption of the same name for the 

 same bird by as many ornithologists as possible. 



3. To ensure the adoption of the name given by the writer 

 who first clearly defined the genus or species to which it 

 belongs, as far as practicable. 



The revolutionary changes introduced by Messrs. Newton, 

 Sharpe, and Dresser, render a codification of ornithological 

 judges' law necessary to reestablish the principles of the 

 Stricklandian code. Perhaps the simplest way to approach 

 this subject will be to select a few of the most flagrant offences 

 of which the above-named writers have been guilty, to point out 

 where these are in violation of the existing code, and, in the 

 cases in which the letter of the law is obeyed in violation of its 

 spirit, to draft out a rider to the present law to meet such case. 



Before proceeding to these cases I should like to say a few 

 words upon the binomial system of nomenclature. Upon 

 this question ornithologists are divided into two camps. We 

 have the Utopian party, who assert that ornithological no- 

 menclature must be strictly binomial, consisting of a specific 

 and generic name only, and the practical party, who assert 

 that to these two names must be added the authority for the 

 specific name. No doubt, in Utopia, where the same name 

 is never given to two species of birds, where ornithological 

 names are never misapplied, and where the memories of orni- 

 thologists are never at fault, such an addition is unnecessary. 

 Among blundering mortals, like ourselves (and I know of no 

 ornithologist who does not blunder, the blunders of ornitho- 



