Fune 24, 1886] 
NATURE 
169 
authority worthy of the object of the work in question. 
Undoubtedly the “ List ” will bear improvement, and the 
second edition will perhaps contain not a few modifica- 
tions, the constitution of the original Committee having 
necessarily embraced men holding different opinions on 
the subject of nomenclature and classification. Still, 
taking the results of their labours as a whole, it seems to 
us that the work was as well done as could have been 
expected, and was a well-meant attempt to introduce 
uniformity into the nomenclature of British birds. 
But since the publication of the B.O.U. “List” 
a complication has arisen through the action of Mr. 
Henry Seebohm, whose work on British ornithology we 
have more than once alluded to in this journal. Mr. 
Seebohm makes short work of nomenclatural difficulties 
as far as British birds are concerned. Where any 
doubt arises respecting the oldest published name of 
a bird, or in cases when obscurity surrounds the mean- 
ing of an ancient description, Mr. Seebohm cuts the 
Gordian knot by taking the general consensus of opinion 
amongst ornithologists of repute, z.e. “azctorum pluri- 
morum,” and where he finds an actual majority of them 
have adopted a certain name, then he considers the latter 
to be the best known, and uses it accordingly. There is 
a decided advantage about this method. It simplifies 
matters amazingly, because in such cases as those of the 
Chiff-chaff, Garden-warbler, and many other familiar birds, 
the best-known names, Phylloscopus rufus and Sylvia 
hortensts, are restored to them, instead of P. codlydita and 
S. salicaria, which Prof. Newton had shown them to be 
with more strictness entitled to. It is probable that had 
a few more years elapsed before Mr. Seebohm published 
his work, he would have had to modify his nomenclature 
even while adopting his azctorum plurimorum principle. 
For this reason. There is no ornithologist in this country 
more looked up to and respected than Prof. Newton, 
and with good cause. All his work is of the very best, 
and when he publishes anything, every ornithologist, 
whether approving his conclusions or not, knows that 
they are the result of the most careful and deliberate 
work, on which no time or labour has been spared, and 
be it an encyclopedia article or a complete work, the 
student may be sure that he will find the subject worked 
up in a way that will leave little for him to add. This 
is our experience of Prof. Newton’s work, and it is work 
which will stand the test of time, for, as long as ornitho- 
logy is studied, Prof. Newton’s publications will always 
be found to carry the history of his subject down to the 
time in which he wrote, forming a starting-point for 
future study. Such being the position of the editor of 
the fourth edition of Yarrell’s “ British Birds,” it is not 
surprising to find that his new edition of this standard 
work was received by ornithologists with respect, and 
that his nomenclature was at once adopted by the major- 
ity of the younger students in this country. Mr. See- 
bohm’s synonymy of British birds shows this over and 
over again. Then the influence of Mr. Dresser’s “ Birds 
of Europe” cannot be under-rated, for he is content to 
sit at the feet of Prof. Newton, and unhesitatingly adopts 
his conclusions. Nor could he have done better, for the 
original work in the “ Birds of Europe” is of the poorest 
quality, and it is as a successful and indefatigable com- 
piler that Mr. Dresser is recognised, viewed in which light 
there can be no doubt that his work will be considered 
the work of reference on European ornithology for a long 
time to come. Thus we have the nomenclature of Prof. 
Newton, by its adoption in Mr. Dresser’s standard work, 
doubly enforced on the ornithologists of Great Britain, 
and so followed by them that, as his synonymy shows, Mr. 
Seebohm would have found that in a few more years it 
would have been auctorum plurimorum, according to his 
own principles of nomenclature. Prof. Newton adheres 
faithfully to the rules of the British Association, and one 
knows, therefore, the principles by which he is guided. 
Mr. Seebohm differs on many questions from the Associa- 
tion Code, and we have our own ideas as to certain points 
of nomenclature, our protest being chiefly against men 
of the Bonapartian school, who take Linnean specific 
names and make them generic, adding a new specific 
name of their own. To our mind, Linnean namesshould 
be held sacred by zoologists, even if it involves the adop 
tion of the subsequent genus, so that we must admit 
Pica pica or Crex crex. The question has been argued 
over before, and the usual verdict is against the adoption 
of this mode of nomenclature ; but we have not found if 
unworkable in practice, and indeed it is often convenient, 
marking out the typical species of the genus. Sufficient 
has been said in the foregoing remarks to show that 
there is considerable variability of opinion even amongst 
British ornithologists with regard to the adaptability ot 
the Association Code to the requirements of modern 
science. 
But, between the method in vogue in England and that 
employed by American ornithologists, there has long been 
great divergence, increasing with years. We have all 
been looking for some authoritative, amd final, work on 
the birds of North America, and it is with pleasure that 
we have lately received the “A.O.U. Code and Check- 
List of North American Birds,” published by the Ameri- 
can Ornithologists’ Union. The Committee appointed 
for the purpose of drawing up this “ List” was.an excellent 
one, consisting of Prof. Elliott Coues, Messrs. J..A. Allen, 
R. Ridgway, W. Brewster, and H. W. Henshaw, while 
they also received the co-operation of Dr. L. Stejneger, - 
who has made some notable researches into.the synonymy 
of birds during recent years. 
The “ A.O.U. List of North American Birds” forms a 
bulky volume of nearly 400 pages. It is divided into five 
parts: an Introduction (pp. 1-17), in which a history of 
the subject is given, showing the various efforts of Com- 
mittees and individual naturalists to systematise the treat- 
ment of scientific nomenclature. This is very completely 
done by the A.O.U. Committee, and with admirable fair- 
ness to the labours of their predecessors. Then comes 
the second section, propounding the “‘ Principles, Canons, 
and Recommendations” (pp. 18-69), the ‘‘ Check-List of 
North American Birds,’ according to. the canons of 
nomenclature of the American Ornithologists’ Union 
(pp. 71-347),! a “ Hypothetical List” of recorded North 
American birds whose status is doubtful (pp. 349-357), 
and, lastly, a most useful list of the “ Fossil Birds of 
North America” (pp. 359-367): 
The introduction calls for no remarks, but it is the 
“Principles and Canons” of the A.O:U. which. will 
interest the British ornithologist. 
In looking through the check-list and comparing the 
nomenclature used for some of the Palaearctic and Nearc- 
tic birds, the ordinary student will be somewhat startled. 
Colymbus is no longer to be retained for the Divers, but 
for the Grebes, and the Divers become'Urznator, so that our 
ordinary Red-throated Diver, familiar as Colyméus septen- 
trionalis isnow Urinator lumme; of the American “ List.” 
From this it will be seen that the latter does not simplify 
existing nomenclature to begin with, and it is the great 
love of change, which has been so-characteristic of recent 
ornithological work in America, which makes us sceptical 
as to whether even the authority of the A.O:U. “List” will 
be sufficient to prevent further modifications in this direc- 
tion. We remember well how in our younger days we fell 
into the nomenclatural snare, and how we carried out, as 
we thought wisely,. changes of well-known names in favour 
of one which had priority of a few years ; and in.one in- 
stance we remember rejecting a well-known name for 
another because the latter occurred.a few pages earlier in 
the same book. These errors of judgment. we have lived 
to repent, because we find with increasing experience that 
By some mistake the pages in the Table of Contents referring to these 
two sections are-not-correctly given.(p. vili.), 
