352 Letters, Notes, ^c. 



XX. — Letters, Notes, i^c. 



We have received the following Letters : — 



Sirs, — There must, I suppose, be many Members of tlie 

 B. O. U. Avho. like myself, take a general interest in 

 Ornithology, while having neither time nor inclination to 

 qualify as specialists in the subject. I think that many 

 such Members will agree with me in protesting against the 

 changes which have been proposed in the nomenclature of 

 our British birds during the last few years. I am well 

 aware that the worship of an elusive priority has introduced 

 confusion in other groups of the animal kingdom, but I 

 know of no group in which such instability is to be found as 

 is to be witnessed in the writings of ornithologists. So great 

 is the change that, for people like myself, the Latin nomen- 

 clature often ceases to define, and the English name, when 

 it is given, becomes the only clue to identity. Who but a 

 specialist habitually disporting him.self in such arid fields 

 would \Qco^\\\%e Anas plat ijrhyncha ('Ibis,' 1912, p. 79) as 

 our familiar Anas boscas, and would justify such a change? 

 Again, on what authority are such names as Ixobrychus 

 (p. 78), Egatlieus (p. 77), Tyto (p. 7\^ — to choose but a few 

 — introduced to supersede names consecrated by universal 

 use '' 



Is it not time that the Union should set a limit to 

 such name-shuffling ? Would it not be practicable for a 

 Committee of the Union to draw up a list of European 

 (or even only British) birds with Latin names appended, 

 and let no generic or specific names but these be printed in 

 * The Ibis ' ? Surely Latin binomial or trinomial nomen- 

 clature should be regarded as an instrument of precise 

 description, and not be used as a weapon of offence. 



Yours &c., 

 Ingham Old Hall, Robert Gurney. 



February lOtli, 1912. 



[We quite agree with our correspondent's remarks, but 

 mav mention that a new edition of the B. O. U. ' List of 



