1884.] Am.en 071 Zoological Nomenclature. 35 ^ 



instance, to illustrate, taking (hypotlietically) Mr. Seehohm's case 

 of the Nuthatches : For the Nuthatches the full form of designa- 

 tion requires the repetition of the specific name {europcea) after the 

 generic name {Sitta) in each case. So we have Sitta europcea 

 ccesta., Sitta europcea ccesia-uralcjisis^ Sitta europcea 7/raIensis., 

 and so on. Mr. Seebohm asks, "What can be more simple 

 than to call the intermediate forms by both names, Sitta 

 \_europcea'\ ccesia-tiralensis P" Certainly, nothing could be sim- 

 pler. But the intermediate forms — the connecting links — are 

 obviously not of uniform character ; in the nature of the case they 

 cannot be. As we proceed eastward from the habitat of the 

 typical or most differentiated phase of ccesia toward the region 

 of the most extreme phase of uralensis we meet first with 

 intermediates which are more closely allied to ccesia than they 

 are to uralensis ; then with phases as nearly allied to the one 

 as to the other ; and finally, in our eastward journey, with those 

 more like ziraletisis than like ccesia. But all these intermediates 

 that depart appreciably from either type Mr. Seebohm would 

 call ccesia-uralensis ., thereby ignoring the fact that a large part 

 of the intermediates are allied more closely to ccesia than they 

 are to uralensis., and another large part more closely to tiraleusis 

 than to ccesia. If, however, we employ for the first element of 

 the fourth name the name of the form to which these interme- 

 diates are most closely allied we are able in every case to exactly 

 express their status and affinities. Thus, on the one hand, we 

 would vise the combination ccesia-tiraleusis for those interme- 

 diates which are more nearly allied to ccesia than l^o tirale7isis., 

 and, on the other, uraleusis-ccesia for those that more nearly 

 resemble uralensis than ccesia. This would be equivalent to 

 saving, Sitta europcea ccesia., varying toward uralensis., and 

 similarly in other cases. Theoretically there should be a distinc- 

 tive designation for those which are exactly intermediate — as 

 well referable to the one form as to the other ; but such interme- 

 diates being few in comparison with the number that lean 

 appreciably to the one side or the other, they may be practically 

 ignored without great loss in exactness of expression ; unless we 

 further compromise by agreeing to designate them by writing the 

 two names as one 'word, without the hyphen, thus, ccesiauralen- 

 szs, the first term, i.e., whether ccesia or ziralensis, being deter- 

 mined by the rule of priority, the older name being allowed in all 

 cases to stand first. It might seem preferable to place first the 



