278 NOTES ON NOMENCLATURE II. 



acquired sufficient currency no longer to cause error, and are there- 

 fore retained without change. But when we find a Batraehiau 

 reptile named in violation of its true affinities Mastodonsaurus, 

 a Mexican species termed (through erroneous information of its 

 habitat) Pints cafer, or an olive-coloured one Muscicapa atra, 

 or when a name is derived from an accidental monstrosity, as 

 in Picus semirostris of Linnaeus, and Helix disjuncta of Turton, 

 we feel justified iu cancelling these names, and adopting that 

 synonym which stands next in point of date. At the same 

 time we think it right to remark that this privilege is very 

 liable to abuse, and ought therefore to be applied only to extreme 

 cases and with great caution. With these limitations we may 

 concede that — 



"11. A name may be changed ivhen it implies a false propo- 

 sition, ivhich is likely to propagate important errors" 



The upshot is therefore clear; where a name implies a false 

 proposition, and where that falsity is likely to propagate impor- 

 tant errors, there, and there only, can any Englishman, who pro- 

 fesses to abide by the British Code, consistently or with any 

 show of justice, reject the name that has priority. 



Now in the present state of ornithology, no ornithologist can 

 pretend that the name brasilianus (or the similar name singa- 

 lensis of Gmelin, for our common Anthreptes), can possibly pro- 

 pagate any error ; the habitats of both species are too well 

 known to render this possible, and no excuse therefore remains 

 uuder the Code for violating in these cases the fundamental law 

 of priority. 



It is quite intelligible that foreign naturalists who reject the 

 Code (and rightly so, I think, so far as the exclusion of Brisson's 

 Brunnich's and similar truly binomial names are concerned) 

 should reject equally the name braziliamis, but that the editors 

 of the Ibis should seek to found a reproach for an adherence 

 to this prior name, on the Code which really enjoins this, indi- 

 cates to my mind how imperfectly they have realized the really 

 catholic spirit which breathes throughout this remarkable 

 document. 



" Unhappy Strickland ! * * * * 



'Twas thine own Gustos gave the fatal blow 

 And helped to plant the wound that laid thee low ! " 



And we may conceive our immortal naturalist folding his 

 • pinions round him and sinking in celestial despair into space 

 with a murmured " et tu Salvine 1" when his official living 

 representative thus appeals to this, Strickland's great legacy 

 to zoology, iu justification of such a violation of its first 

 principles. 



