VOL. viii] B.O.U. LIST OF BRITISH BIRDS. 283 



and again Mem. Accad. Torino, Ser. 2, LXV., No. 5, p. 6, 1915. The 

 only logical conclusion is, therefore, that P. haroli is a " mixtum 

 compositiun " and cannot be made to antedate the undeniable name 

 godmani. I agree, however, with Mr. Mathews, that the name ohscums 

 is not acceptable for the North Atlantic Shearwater, and therefore it 

 should be called Pufflnus assimilis godmani.'''' 



A curious " idiosyncrasy " to which we must refer is 

 that the typical subspecies of each species is given only 

 two names. In the Preface (p. xiii.) the committee seem to 

 be rather proud of having thus avoided the " cumbrous " 

 repetition of the name. Yet all other subspecies are given 

 three names, so that a distinction is made between the typical 

 subspecies and other subspecies when there is no distinction, 

 and no distinction is made between a species and a typical 

 subspecies when, of course, there is a distinction. Is it 

 more cumbrous to refer to the typical form of the Great Tit 

 simply as " Parus major major " or in some such formula as 

 " Parus major (meaning the typical form, not the species 

 as a whole) " ? 



Another point to which attention must be drawn is that 

 the original spelling of names is often altered where no 

 alteration is justified. Article 19 of the Rules reads : " The 

 original orthography of a name is to be preserved unless 

 an error of transcription, a lapsus calami, or a typographical 

 error is evident." Moreover the name in the quotation 

 has sometimes been altered and sometimes not, e.g. p. 95, 

 megarhynchos has been altered to megarhyncha, but on p. 27 

 leucocephaJos is correctly printed as originally spelt ; p. 87 

 clarkei is printed as originally written by Hartert, but on 

 p. 44 we find feldegg altered to feldeggi. There are numerous 

 similar instances, and initial capitals when used in the 

 original have been disregarded, so that the quotations are 

 sometimes unreliable. 



We may draw special attention to Appendix III., in which 

 are given the reasons for the change of each name and also 

 the method of fixation of the types of the various genera 

 used in the List. This is a valuable feature of the work. 



With regard to those cases in which we differ owing to a 

 different interpretation of the Rules or owing to an acceptance 

 or rejection of a work or a diagnosis, we should be perfectly 

 willing to submit to a ruling by the International Commission, 

 and we think that if the B.O.V. List Committee would agree 

 to do likewise the Commission would undoubtedly give 

 its opinion on the points at issue. 



The remaining points of difference in the two lists are 

 taxonomic rather than nomenclatorial. Unfortunately our 



