I ID Stejxeger on Changes in Nomoiclatnre. [April 



out of use, theirs who died long ago, or that of writers of suc- 

 ceeding generations who have forgotten them? I think that every 

 ornithologist is the heir of those authors, and has the right of 

 claiming that justice be done to them. I confess, liowever, that 

 I claim this justice not so much for the sake of the justice itself, 

 or for the 'few departed greatnesses,' but simply because I feel 

 convinced that this justice tends to the benefit of the science, and 

 that the oldest name at last will be recognized, in spite of all 

 efforts to keep it down. I am in this respect very fortunate in 

 agreeing with Dr. Coues, who, in a reply to Mr. Allen about the 

 restitution ('Fasti Ornithologias Redivivi,' in Proc. Phil. Acad., 

 ^SyS' P- 33S) of Bartram's names (of 1791)* says: "Mr. Allen 

 inquires with some warmth, whether this sort of thing 'tends 

 to the best interest of science.' It may or may not, I reply, but 

 I believe it does, and that time will show it does. At any rate, 

 the reason Mr. Allen adduces for his belief that it does not is not 

 a sound one. He says, 'If the example Dr. Coues is here setting- 

 be followed, there will be no stability to our nomenclature for a 

 long time, but only, except, perhaps to a few experts, the most 

 perplexing confusion.' But J contend that the only possible 

 road to stable nomenclature is that which leads to the very bot- 

 tojn of the matter. In the nature of the case, the process of 

 striking bed-rock is desultorv, uncertain and confusing ; I admit, 

 as I deplore, the inconvenience and the difficulty. But a fact is 

 no less a fact because it is a disagreeable one ; and whether we like 

 it or not, the fact remains that names of species ivill continue 

 to sihft until the oldest one that is tenable according to rule is 

 recognized .^■^^ Therefore the sooner a species is hunted down, 

 the better ; . . . . To speak mv mind freelv, I may add that I 

 should have been disappointed, considering that I had signally 

 failed, had not m}' paper made some disturbance ; exactl}' that ef- 

 fect Vi^as anticipated and fully intended, otherwise the paper would 

 not have shown raison d'etre. I am encouraged furtlier to believe 

 that the paper took its own step, however short, in the right 



* American Naturalist, X, 1876, pp. loo-ioi. 



[t Mr. Allen's criticism, as the whole tenor of his article clearly shows, was directed 

 not against necessary changes in nomenclature, nor against the rule of priority, or any 

 other approved canon of nomenclature, but against the acceptance of names having 

 no scientific basis, as was the case with most of the proposed restorations from Rartram. 

 In his rejoinder to Dr. Coues he says : " The point at issue is not whether Bartram's 

 identifiable, described, and binomially named species are entitled to recognition, for no 

 one would be foolish enough to deny that" (Amor. Nat., X, p. 176). — J. A. A.] 



