1896.] RULES OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 313 
(Canon X.), enacts that the name of the author, if given, should 
follow the scientific name without any intervening sign. The 
prevailing practice in this country has been to place a comma after 
the specific name and before the authority. But on this subject, 
I must say, I think that the German Code has good reason on its 
side. When, for example, we write Turdus viscivorus, Linn., we 
mean in fact Turdus viscivorus Linnei—that is, the Turdus visci- 
vorus of Linneus, Linnei being in the genitive case after the 
nominative Turdus viscivorus. If this view, which, no doubt, is the 
correct one, is taken, it is obvious that no commais required between 
the nominative and the genitive which follows it. The adoption 
of this reform would save a great many thousand commas in our 
zoological works. When the author's name refers only to the 
specific and not to the generic term, both English and German Codes 
agree that the author’s name should be enclosed in parentheses. 
I must remind you, however, that the invariable addition of an 
author’s name to a scientific name is a modern practice, and in 
many cases wholly unnecessary. It converts a binary system into 
atrinary one. In familiar names, such’as Zurdus viscivorus, for 
example, it is obviously quite unnecessary to add any authority to 
such a well-known term. 
(2) Another point on which I am glad to be able to agree with 
the German Code is that (see Canon V.) it permits orthographical 
corrections ‘“‘ when the word is, without doubt, wrongly written or 
incorrectly transcribed.” The American rule upon this subject 
(Canon XXXI.), and still more the American practice, is, in my 
opinion, simply perverse. The rule enacts that “ neither generic nor 
specific names are to be rejected for faulty construction, inapplic- 
ability of meaning, or erroneous signification.” They therefore con- 
template, and not only contemplate but insist upon, the surrender of 
the plainest rules of grammar to the principle of priority. We have 
only to turn over the pages of the ‘Check-list’ to find abundant illus- 
trations of this deformity. Cstrelata is written Zstrelata, although 
it is probable that Bonaparte, who was a good classical scholar, 
only spelt it this way by a slip of his pen: Arthyia is spelt Aythya, 
although we know, from its obvious Greek equivalent, that this 
is wrong: Heniconetta is used without the H, although the Greek 
word from which it is derived, carried an initial aspirate: Pediacetes 
is written Pediocetes, as originally misspelt by Baird, although 
there can be no doubt that he meant by it an inhabitant (oixyrjs) 
of the plain (redfov). We will not multiply examples of these 
errors, but need only remark that no one with a pretence to a 
classical education is likely to submit to the causeless infliction of 
such barbarisms. 
The German Code is quite on our side in this instance and not 
only permits such corrections but gives excellent examples (see 
explanation to Sect. V.) of the proper way in which they should 
be carried out. 
Whether corrections of obvious misstatements of fact, and the 
consequent rejection of certain names, should be allowed is another 
question. To me it seems absurd to call an American bird Bucco 
