in Ornithological Nomenclature. 161 



and that in both editions of his 'Manuel' (1815, pp. 113, 

 125; 1820, i. pp. 208, 226), spoke most positively on this 

 point. Kuhl, Bonaparte, Gray, Gerbe, and others have cited 

 the figure without hesitation, some of them more than once. 

 Years ago I showed the plate to several of my ornithological 

 friends, who were well acquainted with birds and also with 

 the representations of them by draughtsmen of the period. 

 No one of them but, after due examination, declared himself 

 satisfied that the subject of the figure was a Greater White- 

 throat taken in autumn. Indeed it cannot have been any- 

 thing else ; the rufous vertex, nape, and mantle, the rufous 

 edging of the wing-feathers, coverts as well as quills, the 

 white outer web of the external remiges are characters which 

 admit of no mistake. And yet Mr. Seebohm not only asserts 

 that " it is impossible to accept this figure as a clear definition 

 of a Whitethroat," and " equally impossible to determine what 

 bird stood as model for " it, but he suggests the serious 

 charge that D'Aubenton " ' evolved ' the figure ' out of the 

 depths of his moral consciousness,' and coloured it to agree 

 with Buffon's description." This accusation seems to me 

 groundless ; and, for the credit of ornithology, I wish it were 

 withdrawn. For more than a century D'Aubenton's draughts- 

 man Martinet has enjoyed unblemished fame as a faithful 

 portrayer who, if wanting in the artistic execution we have 

 occasionally seen since, yet had skill to seize and reproduce 

 the most characteristic features of any bird he figured, as he 

 most certainly did those of the Greater Whitethroat in the 

 plate which Mr. Seebohm, without adducing the slightest 

 evidence, accuses him of drawing from imagination. 



It remains to be said that the name Motacilla rnfa be- 

 stowed by Boddaert applies solely to the subject of this figure, 

 and not to any Faitvette or Grisette described by Brisson or 

 Buffon. Mr. Seebohm's argument that Boddaert's name 

 should be rejected on other grounds involves, I think, some 

 confusion of ideas, upon which I need not dwell. Its admis- 

 sion would be incongruous with the rule of priority. 



This same confusion of ideas seems to me to underlie some 

 of Mr. Seebohm's remarks on the second point at issue, my 

 having restored its Linnsean name to the Garden- Warbler ; for 

 the mistakes of subsequent authors form no valid objection to 

 retaining it in its original sense. The state of the case is 

 this. The Motacilla salicaria of the ' Systema Natural ' rests 

 actually on the bird described by that name in the ' Fauna 

 Suecica:' synonyms have nothing to do with it; and here, as 

 elsewhere in like cases, their consideration must be excluded. 

 Turning to the work last mentioned (ed. 1761) we find the 



