ORNITHOLOGICAL .NOMENCLATURE. 433 
other. ornithologists, who mostly contented themselves. with 
merely referring to the plates or the Italian names it contains, 
as occasion required. Next it was not “ published by. Gerini 
in 1767,” for the very good reason that Gerini had died (as 
the book itself tells us) in 1751; while in regard to the in- 
genious argument which Mr. Seebohm founds upon it, I shall 
save trouble by simply saying that the work is in Italian 
and Latin—the latter (we may fairly infer) being a translation 
of the former; and, considering that Gerini was dead ‘several 
years before the Linnean method of binomial nomenclature 
was propounded, one does uot easily see how he could bé 
acquainted with or adopt it. It is the merest trifling with 
the most trifling subject to urge that these names have any 
value in scientific nomenclature, quite unlike those of 
Boddaert, who deliberately set himself to bestotv names 
according to the Linnean method on the species figured 
in Daubenton’s work. That Boddaert’s intention occasionally 
failed* is no fair reason for putting him aside. 
Mr. Seebohm seems to labour under two delusive impres- 
sions. First, that once upon a time ornithology wore an 
aspect of almost Arcadian simplicity, and next that this golden 
age was needlessly disturbed by certain wicked persons who 
incited the British Association to draw up rules for nomencla- 
ture. I cannot recommend him or any one else to waste his 
toil on such an object, but if he should continue his nomen- 
clatural studies, I hope that he will at last come to the conclu- 
sion that there is now more accord in this matter than there 
ever was before, and that, so far as this accord has been 
attained, it has been reached by the adoption first of the 
Linnzeen method, and next of the code of rules, against both 
of which he raises such an outcry. Furthermore I trust ' 
that in time he will discover that it is not *I who played the 
resurrection-man in regard to Boddaert’s, Miiller’s or other 
neglected names. Those who did that are beyond the reach 
of Mr. Seebohm’s wrath. Whether they acted wisely is beside 
the present question, bat one thing must be said of them: 
neither the late Mr. G. R. Gray nor the late Mr. Cassin had 
part or lot in the conspiracy which promulgated the code so 
odious to Mr. Seebohm. 
Finally I would again state that little good comes from 
these lengthened disquisitions, and repeat that I have no wish 
to convert Mr. Seebohm or any other aberrant nomenclator ; 
but I trust I may save some from being perverted to his 
* One of the failures Mr. Seebohm cites is wrong. To the subject of Pl. Enl, 
692, the name given is Alcedo viridirufa, not viridis rufa. 
