432 ORNITHOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 
takeable description (Hist. Nat. des Oiseaux, i., pp. 301—303) 
of the “ Pie-grieche mousse,” he must look inte another work, 
the “ Planches Enluminees” of Daubenton, and then mystify 
himself and his readers because, though he allows that there 
“is a, perfectly recognizable representation” of the male 
of this species, the female of another species is figured for 
that of the one under discussion—as if husbands and wives 
had not been over and over again wrongly assigned to one 
another by zoologists! It is useless to go into further details 
of this matter. From 1794, when Donndorff brought out his 
“Qrnithologische Beytrage” (i., p. 197), till now, , nobody, Te) 
far as I am: aware, has intimated any doubt on the subject. 
Lastly, Mr. Saunders makes the astounding assertion (the 
italics are his own (that “ the earliest unimpeachable descrip- 
tion and figure of the Woodchat is that of Lanius pomeranus, 
Sparrman’ "forgetful not only of this very description of 
Buffon’s, but of those of Brisson, Klein and Willughby, as well 
as of this figure of Daubenton’s, aad those of Albin, Frisch, 
Pennant and the “ Storia degli Uccelli.” 
Further on in “The Ibis” my old opponent, Mr. Seebohm, 
renews his notice of me, saying that he has done his “ best 
to cure some of the confusion caused by the ill-judged 
attempts” of myself and some others to obey the laws which 
a majority of the best zoologists of the time laid down, and 
shews his kindly disposition towards my fellow-criminals 
and myself by “pointing out a few of the rocks ahead on 
which these gentlemen must rush if they persist in their 
present course.” For myself [ may say that I have no fear 
of the result. Where I have erred I have erred, and I am 
thankful to anyone who will shew me that I] have done so; 
but they who have gone down to the sea in ships know that 
while there are many uususpected dangers in waters that 
have been imperfectly surveyed, there are not a few “ rocks” 
marked on charts which have no real existence, and such 
is the case with some of Mr. Seebohm’s instances. Here is 
one. He says: “Another book has now been unearthed 
from obscurity, published by Gerini in 1767 (Orn. Meth, 
Dig.}*,” and then proceeds to state that the Latin names 
found therein should have as much, or as little, authority as 
those of Boddaert. It would be hard to excel the sentence I 
have quoted for its combination of inaccuracies. In the first 
place this work which “has now been unearthed” by the 
labour of Mr. Seebohm is the well-known ‘ Storia degli Ucelli,’ 
cited I canuot say how often by Latham, Temminck and many 
* In a foot-note Mr. Seebohm adds the full Latin title of this work. . . 
