iSS.f.l S-rKJNK(;Kk on ('//(ri/o-fs ill Noinriiclii/ii rr. I I CJ 



\\;iy"s. \vc" shall lind man\ ikimr's which will iiavc to he <4"ivcii iij). 

 1 will only mention a few examples, in order nc^t to swell this 

 paper, as everybody who is somewhat familiar with the subject 

 can easily make considerable additions to the list. We then 

 would ha\e to dro]:) : — 



y\fl(' III o-r If a IIS for Mergiilii^ allc. 



Siinorhynchus pygiiKeus •' >S. camtsrhaticiis. 



Colymbus forqimtim " C glacialis. 



Hisfriofiicus miiintiis •' Cosinonetta histrionica. 



CygJius colli iiibia?ius " C. atnericauus. 



Asio accipitriiws " A. brachyoiiis. 



Piiiicola enticlcdfor " Coiythus etiiicleator. 



Pica riistica " P. Cauda fa. etc., etc.* 



What under such circumstances would be the fate of Bartram's 

 names, such an JSlanus g'laitczis (Bartr.) Coues, Ictniia subccerii- 

 lea (Bartr.) Coues. Corvns frjigivoriis Bartr., SplzeUa agrestis 

 (Bartr.) Coues, Botaurns tmigitans (Bartr.) Coues, Aranms 

 pictzis (Bartr.) Coues, etc., etc.? Are we going to give up 

 again Forster's names of 1773.? And how about those of Philip 

 Statins Miiller restored by Cassin, or the numerous names of 

 Boddaert .? 



Another question presents itself in this connection : How are we 

 then going to deal with names that have for more than half 

 a century been wrongly identified } Thus, for instance, to cite 

 one of my proposed changes, Totamis glottis^ which Coues still 

 gives as "(L.) Bechst.." although it seems evident that Lin- 

 neus's and Bech stein's ^7o//'/.v are two widely difl'erent birds. ^ 

 Some European authois, not long ago — and most, certainlv 

 more than fifty years after Becbstein's mistake — adopted Gmelin's 

 name cinerascens ; but why not accept Gunnerus's name, which 

 is older, better defined, and in every other respect at least just as 

 good.? "The long survival of an error does not justif}' its con- 

 tinued perpetuation after detection." savs Dr. E. Coues (Check 

 List, 2d ed., p. 24) ; and that is preciselv my opinion, too. 



The American reviewer thinks that a law as above is but just, 

 as these early authors, whose nomenclature is forgotten, have 

 not taken ''the, trouble to make good their title in due time." 

 But whose fault is it that the names have been temporarily 



* Not to speak of Hydivchclidoii larifonnis. which for other reasons is rejected in my 

 paper. 



