iSS4.] Correspondence. 2QQ 



alone? A reference to the synonymy of the Thrushes, as here presented, 

 shows that in some instances the same specific name is used by different 

 writers, in the current literature of the subject, for as many as nine different 

 species; while many names are used yff e times, a much larger number 

 three and Jour times, and a great many more are used twice. The instances 

 are not few where the same specific name is used for two or three different 

 species l>y the same -writer. To displace these names would be simply im- 

 possible, from the fact that the rule of -priority is universally accepted by 

 all biologists — botanists as well as zoologists — as the fundamental prin- 

 ciple of nomenclature, strict adherence to which is the only safeguard of 

 stability in names. To ignore it gives every one the right, or at least 

 opens the way to any one, to give a new name in place of any which for 

 any reason he does not like. So long as tastes differ — as they always 

 will in matters of nomenclature, as in other things — you may readily 

 see what confusion would speedily result. But nothing will ever induce 

 naturalists to i-evoke this rule, which was formally adopted 50 years ago 

 as a relief from the chaos of names resulting from any one who chose dis- 

 placing names he did not like. A fatal objection to your scheme is this 

 substitution of new names for old ones on a large scale, in order that the 

 same specific name may not be used twice in the ^^xn& family . Naturalists 

 already find difficulty enough in selecting names that have not been used 

 before in the same genus I 



So much for this side of the subject. Now as to a point in classification. 

 The Turdidje, as now construed by leading authorities, include not only 

 the birds known to us in this country as Thrushes, but also the very large 

 Old World group of Warblers (genera Sylvia., Phylloscopus, Cettia, Lo- 

 custella, etc.), the Redstarts {RuticiUte), Stonechats {Saxicolce), the 

 Nightingales, Robin-Redbreasts, etc., and our own Bluebirds, and the 

 Solitaires. To use Turdus as the generic term for all these forms would 

 so expand its significance that it would convey no very clear idea of the 

 kind of bird meant. On the other hand, manj' birds popularly called 

 Thrushes — as the great group of -Babbling' Thrushes of the Old World, 

 and the 'Mocking' Thrushes of the New World, including our Brown 

 Thrush, Mockingbird, Catbird, and their allies — are ruled out of the 

 family. The latest and highest authorities on the Passeres emphatically 

 exclude our Mockingbirds and Thrashers from the family Turdidse, on 

 what are considered good structural characters. So j'ou will see that 

 part of the examples you cite as members of Turdus are not admissible 

 into even the Thrush family. I fear, to meet your views, we should have 

 to have not only a new system of nomenclature, but a tietv classification 

 as regards the families of birds. 



But these are onlj' a few specimen examples of the great number of ob- 

 jections your scheme would encounter. The impracticabilities are nu- 

 merous and appear on every hand. 



I do not doubt that you represent a widespread and deep feeling, but at 

 the same tiine it is perfectly evident that it results from limited knowledge 

 of the subject. You have in mind mainly the birds of a limited area — 

 not those of the Avorld at large. But this dissatisfaction vou voice is not 



