TRANSACTIONS OP SECTION D. 735 



This difficulty is entirely due to the almost complete absence ia this country 

 of any precise information as to the food habits of our birds. There exists a large 

 amount of evidence obtained from observers, such as fruit-growers, gamekeepers, 

 sportsmen, and others ; and although some of this may be and is useful, much of 

 it has been distorted on its ■way, through the prejudiced glasses of the observer. 

 What is really necessary in order to obtain as accurate a conception as possible 

 of the economic status of any species of bird is the actual dissection and recording 

 of the contents of the crops and stomachs of a large number of individuals killed, 

 not only in different months of the year, but also in different localities, since 

 different conditions exist in different regions, for example, in Kent and Lancashire. 



Such evidence is the only real and safe guide, and observational evidence, 

 after careful selection, must only be taken as supplementary. 



Very little work of this nature has been accomplished in this country, but 

 until it is done the regulations with regard to the protection of birds will be ever 

 subject to the influence of the personal bias or ignorance of the legislators, and 

 such legislation will be on as equally a sound foundation as many of the fisheries 

 regulations were until the advent of scientific fishery investigations. 



The Biological Survey Bureau of the United States Department of Agriculture 

 furnishes an excellent example of the kind of work that should be carried out ; it 

 is collecting and publishing a valuable mass of information concerning the feeding 

 habits of birds and their nestlings, from which, in the majority of cases, they are 

 able to deduce the precise economic value of these birds. The Central Bureau for 

 Ornithology of the Himgarian Department of Agriculture is doing similar work. 



It is proposed to form a British Economic Ornithological Committee, as such 

 work can be best carried out by a number of biologists working together. At the 

 last annual meeting of the Association of Economic Biologists, held in April 1908, 

 the author moved the following resolution, which was carried unanimously : — 



* That this Association, recognising the great need of an organised inquiry into 

 the feeding habits of the birds of the British Isles, with a view to obtaining 

 a precise knowledge of their economic status, is of the opinion that a committee 

 should be formed with the object of carrying on investigations on this subject.' 



The Board of Agriculture, recognising the importance of the subject, have 

 remised to help the inquiry. 



2. On the Abuses resulting from the strict Ajyplication of the Rule of 

 Priority in Zoological Nomenclature, and on the means of jjrotecting 

 well-established Names. By G. A. Boulenqer, F.R.S. 



Disapproval was expressed of the extreme application of the rule of priority, 

 which in the author's opinion had brought about much mischief under pretence of 

 aiming at ultimate uniformity. 



The author protested against the abuse to which this otherwise excellent rule 

 had been put by some recent workers, encouraged as they were by the decision 

 of several committees who had undertaken to revise the Stricklandian Code, 

 elaborated under the auspices of the British Association in 1842. 



The worst feature of this abuse is not so much the bestowal of unknown 

 names on well-known creatures as the transfer of names from one to another, as 

 we have seen in the case of Astacus, Torpedo, Ilolothuria, Simia, Cynocephalus, 

 and many others which must be present to the mind of every systematist. 



The names that were used uniformly by Cuvier, Johannes Miiller, Owen, 

 Agassiz, Darwin, Huxley, Gegenbaur, would no longer convey any meaning, very 

 often they would be misunderstood ; in fact, the very object for which Latin or 

 latinised names were introduced would be defeated. 



It is all very well to talk of uniformity in the future, but surely we must have 

 some consideration for the past. 



Names with which all general zoologists, anatomists, and physiologists are 

 familiar should be respected, should be excepted from the rule in virtue of what 

 may be termed the privilege of prescription, 



