312 MR. P. L. SCLATER ON THE [Mar. 3, 
Nature’ as our starting-point (as is enacted in the Stricklandian 
Code) we allow Linneus this privilege. If we take the tenth 
edition, as proposed by the American ornithologists, and now 
adopted in the two German Codes, we deny him the right of 
correcting his own work, which, under the circumstances, appears 
to be obviously unfair and injudicious. For it is unquestionably 
the case that Linnzus altered some of his names in his last and 
most perfect edition of 1766-68, and added others to his list. If 
we acknowledge the authority of the authors who wrote between 
1758 and 1766 we shall have to change some of Linnzus’s best- 
known names. For example, the Horned Screamer of South 
America has been universally known to ornithologists as Palamedea 
cornuta, asnamed by Linneeus in the twelfth edition of the ‘Systema,’ 
the genus having been omitted in the tenth edition. In the 
meanwhile, however, Brisson in 1762 (Orn. v. p. 518) had used 
“ Anhima” of Marcgrave as its generic name, and Mr. Stejneger 
has accordingly proposed to call the Horned Screamer Anhima 
cornuta (Stand. Nat. Hist. iv. p. 135). If this alteration be adopted, 
the names of the family Palamedeide and of the suborder Pala- 
lee will likewise have to be changed. 
I will take another example of the inconvenience of alae 
Linneus’s names to be superseded. The Common Darter of 
Central and South America is the Plotus anhinga of Linnzus’s 
twelfth edition and is almost universally known under this name, 
which also gives its name to the family Plotide. Unfortunately, 
Brisson ih the interval between the two editions of the ‘Systema’ 
proposed the generic term Anhinga for the same bird, and the 
American Check-list consequently proceeds to call the Darter 
“ Anhinga anhinga,” and the family ‘ Anhingide.” It must be 
admitted that both these alterations, which are consequent upon 
the adoption of 1758 as the commencement of binary nomenclature 
in place of 1766, as well as many other changes of the same 
character which I need not now cite, are matters of considerable 
importance. Strickland, the founder of our modern Codes of 
Nomenclature, after deliberately considering the point, adopted 
the latest and most perfect edition of the ‘Systema Nature’ as 
his starting-point. J think we should do unwisely to deviate 
from Strickland’s views on this subject. It is true that Strickland 
proposed to allow such of Brisson’s names as were additional to 
those of the twelfth edition of the ‘Systema Nature’ to be 
retained, but he certainly did not contemplate the supercession of 
any of Linneus’s names by those of Brisson or of any other 
authority. On the ground of priority, therefore, I claim that, as 
first decided by Strickland, we ought to adopt the twelfth and most 
perfect edition of the ‘Systema Nature’ as the basis of modern 
Nomenclature. Even if we adopt the tenth edition as our starting- 
point, a special proviso should be made that none of the names 
contained in the twelfth edition should be allowed to be disturbed. 
There are two or three less important points in Zoological 
Nomenclature upon which I wish to add a few words. 
(1) The German Code, which we are now principally considering 
