422 On some Moot Points in Ornithological Nomenclature. 



trivial term, might not Rule 11 of the code apply to it? To 

 call a species " rufus " which has not a shade of that colour 

 about it certainly has the appearance of implying " a false 

 proposition." 



The next and last specific charge is that concerning Acro- 

 cephalus arundinaceus ; and herein I at once claim an ac- 

 quittal, since Mr. Seebohm has himself pronounced my deci- 

 tion to be "legal" and confesses that its legality has been 

 " indorsed " by at least half a dozen other writers. 



It would be an easy matter to extend my remarks to 

 the rest of Mr. Seebohm's diatribe, and to criticise his pro- 

 posed "riders," five in number, to the unhappy Rule 12, 

 which at present falls so short of his desires. I would only 

 observe thereon that there may be a something worse than 

 "judges' law," namely law which is not judges'. Would-be 

 legislators on nomenclature must take a wider view of the 

 subject than ornithology only affords ; but I cannot stop to 

 establish that position. My inclination is not towards con- 

 troversy; I have little time to spare; and, lastly, I am deeply 

 affected by one of Mr. Seebohm's statements. He declares 

 (pp. 430, 431), doubtless from experience of his own case, that 

 the blunders of ornithologists are "pretty much in the direct 

 ratio of the amount of work they do." This declaration should 

 make all of us cautious ; for it may be true in other cases. 



Mr. Seebohm is greatly averse from any change of esta- 

 blished custom. So am 1 ; but I want to know what esta- 

 blishes custom ; and, if he favours the readers of l The Ibis ' 

 with another dissertation on nomenclature, I hope he will 

 define what he means by " general use." It is not enough 

 that all ornithologists have hitherto agreed to regard a certain 

 figure as a representation of a certain species : Mr. Seebohm 

 says the figure is " unintelligible ;" and so all their opinions 

 (" general use " notwithstanding) are to go for nothing. He 

 objects to my carrying out rules " without regard to conse- 

 quences " — or, in other words, impartially — that it is " reck- 

 less." In his eyes obedience to a code is a "flagrant offence" 

 in violation of it. He finds me pursuing a strictly " legal " 

 course; hence he terms that course "revolutionary" and wishes 

 (pp. 429, 430) to alter the rules to suit his views of what the 

 rules ought to be. If there is not here as nice a " derange- 

 ment of epitaphs " as any Mrs. Malaprop would desire, I 

 hardly know where else it can be found. 



Magdalene College, Cambridge, 

 November 3, 1879. 



