280 BRITISH BIRDS. [vol. vni. 



The next group of differences to be considered is that 

 under the heading nominu co^iservarida. The principle of 

 suspending the Rules in certain cases was agreed upon at the 

 Ninth International Congress in 1913, and certain definite rules 

 for such cases were drawn up and passed (see British Birds, 

 Vol. VII., pp. 7 and 8). The question having thus been 

 very fully discussed at a congress of zoologists from all over 

 the world and a definite resolution having been passed, no 

 single society has any right to ignore that resolution and 

 to adopt a list of nomina conservanda of its own without 

 the sanction of the Congress. The names in this list make 

 the unlucky total of thirteen, and we need hardly add that 

 we shall accept no nomma conservanda other than those 

 ordained by the International Commission, for it must be 

 quite clear that if any one person or society suspends the 

 law each will choose a different set of cases and chaos will 

 again be the result. The names to be maintained are 

 quite arbitrarily chosen ; it is difficult to understand Avhy, 

 for example, the time honoured luscinia has been shifted 

 from the Nightingale to the Sprosser and graculus from the 

 Chough to the Alpine Chough if, for example, fuscus is to be 

 retained at all costs for the Dusky Redshank. 



A few names used by us are rejected on account of the 

 status of the works in which they occur. These are : — 



Pallas's names in Vroeg's Catalogue, namely, Muscicapa s. 

 striata, M. h. hypoleuca, Sylvia c. cantillans, Calidris levcophaa, 

 Colymbus r. ruficollis, and Sterna tschegrava and (Enanthe 

 pleschanka of Lepechin, but the objections seem to us ground- 

 less, and there is no International Rule or Opinion under 

 which the names proposed in that part of Vroeg's Catalogue 

 which is known to have been written by Pallas or the names 

 in Lepechin's article can be rejected. 



The remaining differences depending upon questions of 

 nomenclature alone are really very few. The following 

 generic names used by us are rejected : J^golms, Athene, Tyto^ 

 Polysticta, Hydrohates, Eremophila, Apvs, because of the 

 prior use of names which differ only in the termination, 

 e.g., Athena, Tyta, Apos, etc. This point, however, has been 

 provided for in the International Rules, the " Recommenda- 

 tion " attached to Article 36 being as follows : — 



"It is well to avoid the introduction of new generic names which 

 differ from generic names akeady in use only in termination or in 

 a slight variation in spelling which might lead to confusion. But 

 when once introduced, such names are not to be rejected on this 

 account. Examples: Picus, Pica; Polyodtis, Polyodon, Polydonta„ 

 Polyodontas, Polyodontus ,- Macrodon, Microdon.^' 



