Letters^ Extract!^, and Notes. 213 



I can scarcely nuderstand liow that '.vas writteu in face of 

 niy statement — " but my main, and to me, unanswerable 

 argument against Brisson was that he was non-binomial." 



As my arguments appear to have been so misunderstood 

 by the reviewer, I may be allowed to briefly summarize my 

 position in this matter. It is noteworthy that this is a 

 question upon which the leaders of the B. O. U. have, at 

 times, fj'iven their opinions in favour of the rejection of the 

 Brissonian genera. I am still convinced of the im])ropriety 

 of aihnitting the Brissonian genera, and in this matter I am 

 at one with the leaders of the B, O. U., as the following 

 excerpts will ^how. 



In noticing Dr. Ilartert's paper regarding the non- 

 recognition of these names, the reviewer in ' The Ibis ' 

 (1903, p. 418) wrote: '^' It is more logical for binomialists 

 to discard Brisson's nomenclature altogether " ; and in a 

 l)aper in ' The Ibis' (1905, p. 85 et seqrj.) Dr. Schiter wrote 

 (p. 88) : ''There are, however, some authors who maintain 

 that Brisson, not having been a Binomialist, ought not to be 

 allowed to found genera in a Binominl System. Dr. Ilartert 

 is strongly of that o|)iuion (see ' Ibis/ 1903, p. 418), and I, 

 though I have .usually followed the lead of my friend and 

 master, Strickland, have always thought that it was a 

 mistake to have made this special exception in favour of 

 Brisson." 



Mr. Ogilvie-Grant, of the Bird Department in the British 

 IMuseum and Editor of the 'Bulletin of the British Orni- 

 tholcgists' Club,' rejected the Brissonian genera in his 

 volumes of the ' Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum.' 



Now is the time for the B. O. U. to shew their firmness 

 in dealing with this disturbing factor; and by unanimously 

 approving of the rejection of these illegal Brissonian names, 

 they will bring about a nomenclature that will be more 

 stable than any hitherto employed. There should be no 

 hesitation in this matter, as this has been the most un- 

 settling feature of ornithological nomenclature in recent 

 vears. All i/nprejvi/iced writers M'ho haAe had to note 



