431 | bt 
Ornithological Homenclature.* 
(dn dddendum to “ The [bis” for January, 1883.) 
_ Arter the lapse of more than three years,f I regret to find 
myself again forced into a controversy on Nomenclature 
——the most vexing and barren subject that can afflict the 
naturalist ; but certain remarks in the last number of “ The 
Ibis” leave me no choice. My friend Mr. Howard Saunders 
therein takes up more than two pages in trying to prove that 
a. well-known species of Shrike should bear the name of 
Lanius pomeranus rather than L. auriculatus, of which latter 
designation he charges me with being, apparently, “ the god- 
father.’’ In what sense, if any, this word is used I know- not. 
The name against which he protests was not given by me, 
but (as he himself admits) by P. L. 8. Miiller in 1776; and 
Mr. Cassin, in the “ Proceedings’’ of the Philadelphia Academy 
for 1864, restored it, adding, what is unquestionably true, 
that it “has priority of all names, except that of Brisson, 
and is sufficiently described by Prof. Miiller, and especially 
mentioned as ‘ Buffon’s Pie-grieche rousse.’ Brisson’s name 
is generally adopted, but, in strict adherence to priority in 
the binomial method, this name has the right.” Mr. Saunders 
disallows the use of “ anriculatus,” because of the insufficiency 
or inaccuracy of Miiller’s diagnosis; but any one versed in 
zoological literature must know that on the same grounds 
scores of names bestowed by the best naturalists, not only 
of the last century but even of the present day, would have to 
be set aside. Miiller, in the preface to his “ Anhang,” expressly 
stated that the species he added to those enumerated by 
Linnzus are such as had been described by Buffon and other 
naturalists, which he then brought into the “ Natursystem,” 
and named according to the Linnean method. Nothing 
therefore was further needed to identify the species than 
to quote the name under which Buffon described it, and 
this Miiller did. But strange to say Mr. Saunders is not 
contented herewith. Instead of turning to Buffon’s unmis- 
* T received a printed copy. of this addendum just as this number was about to 
issue, and reproduce it at once, as it seems only fair that both sides of the question 
should be heard, and, one way and another, out here, we have heard a great deal 
during the last two years of Messrs. Seebohm and Saunders’ views of Professor Newton’s 
supposed deliqnuencies, Personally, so far as the principle of a rigid adherence to 
the rules is concerned, I wholly agree with my honored friend, Prof Newton. Ed. .S F 
¢ See.“ Annals and Magazine of Natural History’ for August and December 1879, 
