no R^^i^^- [xsfo"ct. 



Mathews has now proposed to the Council of the R.A.O.U. that 

 it should accept, as its official check-list, a revised edition of his 

 latest list. The Council has replied that it is considered that the 

 present time is not opportune for the issue of a second edition 

 of the " Official Check-Hst." Apparently nothing approaching 

 fihahty is yet in sight as regards the naming of Australian birds. 



How are Australian ornithologists to name birds until this 

 troublous time is passed, and a second edition of the " Official 

 Check-list " is issued ? The Council of the R.A.O.U. has decided 

 that the editors shall use in The Emu the names according to the 

 " Official Check-hst of the Birds of Austraha," and shall, if the 

 author of a paper desires it, insert in a bracket following the 

 "■Check-Hst " name the name according to Mr. Mathews's " A List 

 of the Birds of AustraUa." Thus official recognition is again being 

 given to the painstaking efforts of Mr. Mathews. Though Mr. 

 Mathews stated that his desire was for uniformity in naming, his 

 treatment of cosmopolitan groups, such as the diurnal birds of 

 prey and the Charadniformes, is very different from that of the 

 committee of ornithologists who prepared " The A.O.U. Check- 

 list of North American Birds." It remains to be seen whether 

 the committee of the British Ornithologists' Union that is- now 

 preparing an official list of British birds has adopted the fine 

 distinctions used by Mr. Mathews in the latest hst, which is so 

 very different from his " Reference-hst," pubhshed in 1912. 



Concerning the important question as to whether the names 

 now used by Mr. Mathews will be accepted by ornithologists, he, 

 with his accustomed candour, quotes, in the introduction of his 

 new hst, the following " plain-spoken" criticism : — " Mr. Mathews's 

 extreme views upon generic subdivision bring into use many 

 names usually relegated to synonymy, and these, together with 

 the new ones which he proposes, will provide names for almost 

 all, if not the whole of the groups of Charadniformes that can 

 possibly be differentiated. Whether his nomenclature will be 

 followed by others is open to question. His aim to be consistent 

 in the amount of differentiation necessary for the recognition of 

 a separate genus is praiseworthy, but consistency in judging 

 questions of degree of difference involves the personal equation, 

 and can only be settled by the vote of a committee." Mr. 

 Mathews adds : — " To which, after the word ' committee,' should 

 have been added, ' who have all equally and fully studied the group 

 in question.' " 



Two facts must be noted — (i) Mr. Mathews, as regards genera, 

 went to the other extreme in the " Reference-list " ; (2) his treat- 

 ment of the Passeriformes is similar to that of the Charadriiformes, 

 for, in " A List of the Birds of Australia," he has divided the 

 305 species of Australian perching birds recognized by him into 

 not fewer than 206 genera. His treatment of the genus Pachy- 

 cephala is instructive. The genus Pachycephala of the " Reference- 

 list " consisted of four genera of his " Hand-list " " lumped " 

 together. It has now been subdivided into 12 genera, containing 



