1G2 On some Points in Ornithological Nomenclature. 



brief diagnosis quite compatible with that of the Garden-War- 

 bler, and the description, which is much fuller than that given 

 in the ' Systema,' incompatible in one character only — " linea 

 albida supra oculos," while in other respects it fits the Garden- 

 Warbler alone of all Swedish birds with which Linnseus was 

 likely to have met. Mr. Seebohm considers that the phrase 

 " superciliis albis " condemns the description ; but I assure 

 him he is in error, for snpercilium does not necessarily mean 

 an eyebrow, or still less a " superciliary stripe ;" and the word 

 is doubtless here used for the eyelids, which in the Garden- 

 Warbler are clothed with white feathers. Again, the words 

 " Pedes fulvi " form no part of the original description, while 

 his suggestion that Linnseus's bird was an Acrocephalus is 

 utterly at variance with the statements " Rectrices remigibus 

 concolores," and " Habitat in sylvis," as well as with the 

 closing remark of the description, u Avis valde afhnis Sylvice 

 \i. e. the Greater Whitethroat], modo non sexu tantum dis- 

 tincta." Nilsson, unquestionably the best authority on the 

 birds of Sweden, has never faltered in deeming the M. sali- 

 caria to be the Garden- Warbler *; and I cannot at all 

 agree with my critic that, under all these circumstances, 

 Linnams " failed to define the species clearly," or that his 

 description of it is invalidated by the single inaccuracy above 

 noticed. As well might we declare that his Falco haliaetus 

 is not the Osprey because he said of it, " Pes sinister semi- 

 palmatus " f • 



I have thus tried, as briefly as I could, to answer the objec- 

 tions urged by my good friends, and, I trust, with some success, 

 though I have not the vanity to suppose that I shall affect their 

 opinions, for all must allow that a discussion on nomenclature 

 is generally profitless. I cannot even say that I desire to make 

 converts of them, since the names used by zoologists are almost 

 a matter of indifference to me. I am simply striving to carry 



* Herein Glogei (Handb. p. 243) and, it would seem, Lichtenstein 

 concur. 



t I said before that I had no wish to criticise such parts of Mr. See- 

 bohm's paper as do not refer to myself; but I must remark that his 

 comments on the M. borin of Boddaert seem to be beside the question. 

 In almost every department of zoology we have long had local names 

 brought into scientific nomenclature, witness Lemur mongoz, Lanius 

 tschagra, Coluber hadje, liana pipa, and Sahno hucho, among a multitude 

 of others. The practice is not graceful ; but Motacilla borin is hardly 

 worse than any of the above, and quite as good as Estrelda astrild, 

 Hypsipetes ourovang, or Penelope marail, which are in common use. I 

 cannot help thinking that those writers who may hereafter forego the 

 expressions Sylvia cinerea and S. hortensis will not do so in favour of 

 S. eomrnimis and >S. simpler, in spite of my friend's recommendation. 



