3796 The Zoologist — December, 1873. 



The statement in regard to Cardinalis is erroneous in several 

 respects: first, I did not make "a new Mexican variety, carneus, 

 of Cardinalis virginianus," but gave the synonymy of that pre- 

 viously named race, citing Lesson first, and Bonaparte's Conspectus 

 next, as authorities for the name, which I merely reduced to the 

 rank of a race. The new race which I characterized was Coccineus 

 Ridgway, from eastern Mexico, while Carneus, Lesson, was from 

 the western coast. In reducing C. igneus, of Baird, to a variety, I 

 did not follow "a previous writer" (Key, p. 151 cited) since, as 

 explained further on, I had not seen the " Key " until after the 

 printing of my paper. 



In the case of the western forms of Cyanura I am perfectly 

 willing to renounce all claims to originality; for if my method of 

 treating them contributes to the better understanding of the relation 

 which they bear to each other, my aim is accomplished. 



So far as Dr. Coues' ''Key" is concerned in the matter of no- 

 menclature, it must in this instance be ignored, as the following 

 facts justify : — though the " Key " was published in October (187-2) 

 and my papers not until December and January following, yet I 

 never saw the pages of that work until after the issuing of my 

 papers, which were written and forwarded to the publishers the 

 preceding July or August, at which time I had not seen the " Key " 

 at all. Even had I seen and been perfectly familiar with its pages, 

 I could still claim with perfect right, for reasons stated farther on, 

 originality for the nomenclature which I used. 



And now, having justified myself in regard to the relation which 

 my paper held to previous publications in specific points, let me 

 say a few words in its defence on general principles. From the 

 time when its preparation was first discussed in ray mind to the 

 time of its publication, the question never once occurred to me 

 whether the laws whicl\ I endeavoured to explain were my own 

 discoveries, or whether their discovery was the property of others. 

 I took it for granted that the subject and its general principles 

 were so familiar that a preliminary review of its literature would 

 be a superfluous addition to a paper already overburdened with 

 references — of which, very singularly, my reviewer corajilains of 

 a meagreness. My only view was to begin at once with these laws, 

 slate as precisely and briefly as possible what their principles 

 were, and illustrate them, purely in the interest of science, by 

 novel cases, and, when possible, by the cumulative evidence of 



