J 24 Royal Australasian Otnithologists' Union. risf^an 



evolution, and classified and agreed to internationally as a basis, 

 and for a fixed period, we should have a stable foundation from 

 which the student could proceed. Otherwise, we might arrange the 

 family tree in some form of arithmetical progression, genera, species, 

 and sub-species to be expressed fractionally. The present method 

 of naming birds is arbitrary, and is governed by the personal 

 idiosyncrasies of the classifier, subject to certain established rules 

 in common use. This method, at best, panders to the vanity of 

 workers, and therefore is likely, in the future as in the past, to 

 introduce into scientific research most undesirable features. 

 Each classifier in turn has endeavoured to frame an infallible rule 

 to determine what shall be a species, sub-species, or variety. The 

 granting of specific and sub-specific rank simply indicates an 

 appreciation of the value of the zoological specimen before us. 



The whole zoological system within which our aviforms are 

 incorporated is still in a transitory state. Its early fixity is both 

 desirable and necessary. We should endeavour to aid its fixity 

 in every way. Ihe system is becoming extremely weighty. 

 The lightening of the burden by the symbolization of the nomen- 

 clature or by a synthetical system of arithmetical progression of 

 degrees of value should help to relieve the tension. We should 

 modernize our machinery, and scrap-heap the old, though 

 cherished, mechanism that has been good enough for past service. 

 The sum total of zoological knowledge is being yearly added to, 

 and is growing too voluminous for the old foundation to carry 

 safely the superstructure. Until the consummation of the 

 project that I have promulgated we should provisionally accept 

 the system that indicates best the intergradation of animals. 

 For your information let me here cite Article 2 of the Inter- 

 national Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, framed to meet nomen- 

 clatural refinements : — " The scientific designation of animals is 

 uninomial for sub-genera and all higher groups, binomial for 

 species, and trinomial for sub-species." I maintain that the 

 system, to be of use, must be universal. Pursuant to the laws 

 of the International Code, the name chosen will have the best 

 chance of permanency, seeing that its code governs all zoology. 

 Science recognizes no nationality or boundary. If we desire to 

 be scientific we must perforce bow to science, and conform to its 

 established usages, which are framed, if we can use such a term, 

 for utility. 



We cannot place sub-species on an equal footing with species. 

 Neither can we deny them rank if we admit species to a status 

 apart from genera. It is, therefore, necessary to have some 

 system of nomenclature. The trinomial or trinominal system 

 appeals to me as the best method at present in vogue. Neither 

 the binomial nor the trinomial system prevents " hair-sphtting " 

 by the devotees of either method. Trinomialism indicates at once 

 that a bird is but a geographical variation of a typical form, 

 and shows at a glance its value and status. This prevents the 

 needless searching out of an original description, such as is often 



