in Ornithological Nomenclature. 421 



treated in common by that gentleman and myself, his nomen- 

 clature differs from my own in thirteen instances, including 

 the important cases of Symium and Strix*. The fact that 

 Mr. Sharpe did not follow me further is not only a proof of 

 his wholly independent action, but a disproof of the imputa- 

 tion of his ever following me " blindly." Whatever epithet 

 may be applied to my " lead," it is surely Mr. Seebohm's 

 statement that is " unfortunate." 



Leaving, however, my supposed copartners in crime to 

 answer for themselves, and for their eyesight, which none 

 can doubt they are competent to do, I will proceed to the 

 charges now brought against ine personally by Mr. Seebohm. 

 Formidable as they seem, examination reduces them to twof, 

 of which one is the old story — the proper scientific name to be 

 given to the Greater Whitethroat. I really hoped I had dis- 

 posed of this before J ; but although he has never adduced an 

 atom of evidence in support of his assertion (which fact does 

 not much surprise me, seeing that none is forthcoming), Mr. 

 Seebohm still maintains that " PI. Enl. 581. fig. 1 " is 

 " unintelligible" (which fact has the contrary effect). He is 

 absolutely obdurate on this point, and will hear not Moses or 

 the prophets. In vain for him have Temminck and Kuhl, 

 Bonaparte and Gray, Gerbe and many others written. What 

 was intelligible to them is not so to Mr. Seebohm ; but as it 

 is no part of my business to find any of my friends in intelli- 

 gence, I will here dismiss the matter, merely suggesting, as a 

 subject of curious inquiry on the part of those who have 

 leisure, whether, if the beloved and " familiar " name " Phyl- 

 loscopus rufus " be not set aside, owing to the prior use of its 



* On the subject of the nomenclature of the Striglclce I may perhaps 

 be allowed to remark that, in the same number of ' The Ibis,' an editorial 

 notice (p. 480) assumes that Forster's first application of the name Bubo 

 ignavus to the Eagle-Owl was made in his " second catalogue " (p. 46), 

 ignoring the fact of its use in his "first catalogue " (p. 3), which duly 

 bears date 1817. This fact must be deemed conclusive. Those, how- 

 ever, who are curious as to the date of the " second catalogue " (to my 

 mind so needlessly called in question) may like to know that the copy 

 of the work in the library of the Linnean Society, containing (like my 

 own) both catalogues in the original binding, is included in the list of 

 " Additions" to the library of that Society, printed at the end of the 12th 

 volume of its 'Transactions' (p. 590), which volume bears date 1817, 

 and is therefore undeniable evidence of the " second catalogue " having 

 been published in that year — unless, indeed, ground be shown for doubting 

 the identity. 



t The question whether we should write " Acrocephalus aqxaticus 

 (Gmel.) '' or " Acrocephalus aquations (Temm.)" seems scarcely to require 

 notice. 



% I wifh here to correct a misprint in my former paper (supra, p. 161, 

 line 13) : " remiges " should bo " rectrices.'' 



