J22 Royal Australasian Ornithologists' Union. [isf Jan. 



orderly manner the vast array of natural history objects in the 

 animal kingdom surrounding us. For the absolute fixity in and 

 basis for names, the International Congress of Zoological Nomen- 

 clature chose the loth edition of Linn?eus. The acceptance of 

 this rule aims at the prevention of any future haggling, and 

 should create a harmonious code, and at the same time should 

 attain a fixity in designation for organized beings. 



Having now a very brief outline of the need for an 

 orderly classification of our aviforms, we should examine the 

 machinery we use to produce the directory of the classification 

 of our birds to see whether it works well, needs oiling, or is 

 obsolete. This machinery, based on the binomial system, works 

 on the idea that a species is a fixity. Linne, experiencing the 

 inadequacy of his own binomial system, when naming those 

 groups of lesser value than species, used a third word in con- 

 junction with the binomial name, but separated by the sign 

 " var." (or variety) or some other symbol. Years ago both 

 British and American scientists saw the necessity of recognizing 

 by name a great number of forms of birds intermediate between 

 nominal species, and connecting the latter by links so perfect that 

 the handling of species required reconsideration. The intimate 

 knowledge of the climate and geographical variation of species 

 placed zoologists in a quandary, and they had either to discard 

 a great number of species that had been described, and so ignore 

 all the ultimate modifications of aviforms, or else to recognize as 

 good species the same large number of forms which, it was known, 

 shaded into each so completely that no specific character could 

 be assigned. When speaking of birds a technical name for 

 common use was required. That name was compounded of its 

 genus, species, and variety. It was, therefore, agreed that when 

 two birds were found living together in the same districts they 

 could not be considered sub-species however slight the differential 

 features might be ; these must, be permanent to make the two 

 birds specifically distinct, otherwise the differences must be put 

 down to individual variation. Where two birds, referable to 

 the same species, but inhabiting different areas, were found to 

 show constant slight separable characters, these were to be 

 ranked as sub-species, even though certain individuals in each 

 area may be inseparable. American ornithologists adopted this 

 system of trinomial nomenclature, and they claim, after casting 

 the system into the melting-pot, to have refined it and made it 

 more valid. 



W. P. Pycraft, in " Animal Life : an Evolutionary Natural 

 History," vol. ii. — " A History of Birds," dealing with the subject 

 of variation and natural selection in birds and the origin of species, 

 says : — 



" Natural species are said to be physiological species, as distinct 

 from the morphological species of the breeder. This was Huxley's 

 contention. But, as a matter of fact, presumably ' physiological ■ 

 species often prove, when put to the test, to be syngamic — that is to 



