IlS Stejneger <;;/ Changes i)i Noineiicla hire. [April 



Turning to my English reviewer, I want especially to call 

 attention to the fact that there are many points in ornithological 

 nomenclature wherein the English naturalists are compelled to 

 disagree with a great many zoologists, especially with those of 

 North America, who, with only few exceptions, take LinnjEus's 

 loth edition for their nomenclatural starting-point, while the 

 former still strictly adhere to the 12th edition. 



But there are two points in the 'Ibis' review which can be dis- 

 cussed with advantage, as they have nothing to do with the vexed 

 question about the two Linntiean editions. In a foot-note the edi- 

 tors give their reasons why they feel justified in continuing the 

 use of the universally adopted Plectrophanes for Emberiza 

 nivalis^ and not accepting for the latter tiie term Plectrophenax 

 proposed by me. They say : "Although it is quite true that, in 

 the preface to his Vogel Liv-und Esthland (1815), Meyer casually 

 mentioned the term Plectrophanes as applicable to Frii^gilla 

 lapponica only, we find, on reference to the 'Zusatze u. Bericht. 

 zu Meyer und Wolf's Taschenbuch,' 1822 (in which the genus 

 was first properly characterized), that Plectrophanes -wa^ inten- 

 ded to include both Fringilla lapponica and Emberiza nivalis .'''' 



When Bechstein, in 1803, created the division Calcarius (a 

 term also used by him in 1807, in the 2d edit, of his 'Gemeinn. 

 Naturg. Deutschl.,' Ill, p. 245) he considered lapponicus and 

 nivalis generically distinct. He included the former under Cal- 

 carius., for which genus lapponicus consequently is the type.* 

 In his later books he followed the same practice. In iSio 

 Meyer and Wolf strictly followed the example ot Bechstein. 

 separating lapponicns from the body of the genus Eringilla 

 as a separate 'family,' as they called it, still leaving nivalis 

 under Emberiza. In 1815 Meyer, however, recognized lappon- 

 ictis as a separate genus in the most binding words: "gehort 

 keineswegs zu der Gattung Fringilla, sondern muss eine eigene 

 Gattung bilden ; ich nenne sie Plectrophanes, Sporner" ; but he 

 treats nivalis under Emberiza., thus evidently showing that 

 Plectrophanes -was not intended to inchide both lapponica aizd 

 nivalis, as the Editors of 'The Ibis' state. It is moreover not 

 correct to say that the genus was not properly characterized 

 before 1822. Bechstein had already 'properly characterized' 

 Calcarius in 1803, and we have seen that there cannot be the 



* Authors regarding nivalis as being congeneric with lapponicus, will therefore have to 

 adopt the combination Calcarius nivalis (rjn.). 



