1S84.] Stkjnkuek on C/zaiiocs in Nomciiclnfiirf. I I ^ 



direction, by the recollection that certain lursli of" ni\ lionoied 

 predecessor in his particular line of work, whose title I have had 

 the presumption to revive, were received with wrv faces and 

 shrugs — and received, nevertheless. I am pei-fectly satisfied to 

 let n)y own l)e tested in the crucible of time." 1 1 is words are 

 written as out of my own heart, and fit my case like a glove. 

 Dr. Coues's innovations were also met with wry faces and shrugs 

 — and received nevertheless, and this I trust will be the fate of my 

 'innovations' too. 



Lastly, my esteemed critic asks if I have "'in all cases taken up 

 names which rest upon diagnoses," and further, if "indication of 

 a type species makes a generic name valid." 



As all the proposed changes of the specific names rest upon 

 descriptions, most of them being for the time even very good, 

 both the above questions refer to the generic appellations. As the 

 second question is the more comprehensive, I take it first, and say 

 that, at the present time at least, it is the usualh' followed rule to 

 allow generic names, even if without diagnosis, when only their 

 type can be ascertained. I could mention plentv of examples 

 from Dr. Coues's latest check-list, Ridgway's list, Dresser's list, 

 British Ornithologists' Union's list, and probably from the greater 

 part of authors. From the last mentioned list I will only cite one 

 example, Eritkacus Cuv., 1799-1800, as it is an exact counterpart 

 of one of the least appi'oved of my proposals, viz.. Urinator 

 Cuv. Not less opposition will meet the proposed substitution of 

 Forster's names of the Swallows for those of Boie. But both of 

 thein^ Boie as well as Forster^ give onlv tvpes, no descriptions or 

 diagnoses. It ^vill in this connection be well to remember that in 

 fact almost all of Boie's genera rest onlv upon mention of the 

 types without descriptions, and so do Brehm's in 'Isis,' 1828 ; so 

 do a great part of Bonaparte's,, Reichenbach's, and Grav's genera. 

 besides plenty of others. Practically we may say the same about 

 Kaup's genera of 1829, and, in fact, about those of most of the old 

 writers, as their diagnoses of the genera — as well as Linnaeus' s — 

 for a great part would be completely unrecognizable if not accom- 

 panied by typical species. I think that the question about the valid, 

 ity of genera has got the best answer in the fact that it in most 

 cases, especially among the older authors, is easier to determine 

 the identity of a genus name with type species only, than Avith 

 diagnosis only. 



