A ROUGH TENTATIVE LIST OF THE BIRDS OF INDIA. 79 



pounds^ such as Butadur, pomarinus, Rhyticeros, &c., where 

 syllables have been designedly elided by syncope or fused by 

 syncrasis for the sake of euphony or to avoid an unpleasant 

 alliteration. From this rule I have onl}"- deviated where such 

 syncope has led to misconception, as where a black-backed bird 

 has been called melanotus (for melanonotus) , and this has led to 

 its generally appearing as melanotis, or black-eared. 



There are many names of which I can make nothing, and 

 with whose orthography or transliteration, treating them as 

 nonsense names^ I have not concerned myself. Take, for in- 

 stance, Jerdon^s Bracht/podius poiocephnlus. If poio were taken 

 from the Greek, it should be spelt pceo, but there is no Greek 

 word apparently from which it could come, except the Doric 

 or Ionic forms of 7ro«, grass, as in Troiovoy.og, feeding on 

 grass. But " grass-headed" would be an absurd name for a 

 grey-headed bird, the rest of whose body was green. I have 

 no doubt that Dr. Jerdon meant to write poliocephala (hoary- 

 headed) or phceocephala (grey-headed), hut he did not, and so as 

 the word poio cannot be taken as from the Greek, I have written 

 it poiocephala, as Jerdon did, an^^ have not altered it, it being 

 impossible to discover now whether he intended poliocephala or 

 phceocephala. 



Having thus briefly indicated the principles on which I have 

 endeavoured to guide myself in compiling the nomenclature 

 of this list, let me hasten to admit that most probably I have 

 in my haste, unwittingly in some cases, disregarded these 

 principles. 



A list like this must be full of errors of nomenclature, and 

 I can only most earnestly invite the co-operation of every one 

 into whose hands it may fall in correcting it. 



In order to facilitate its rectification, I shall retain a special 

 section at the end of all future numbers of this journal, where 

 all corrections and additions proved or discovered to be 

 necessary will be indicated, and where all disputed points con- 

 nected with it can be argued out and discussed. 



I by no means promise to accept all volunteered emenda- 

 tions, but I do promise to give all such which are based on 

 the Code a fair field, and to accept or explain fully my reasons 

 for rejecting them. 



I say '' based on the Code^' because it must be clearly under- 

 stood that I am not prepared to re-argue points definitely set- 

 tled by that Code. I do not personally agree with many of its 

 dicta, but I consider uniformity of such paramount importance 

 as to render it the plain duty of every British naturalist to 

 abide strictly by all its dicta, (not merely those he may chance 

 to concur in, but by the Code as a whole,) until it shall have 



