308 . Mft. r. L. SOLAtEB ON TUB [Mar. 3, 



in conformity with a resolution adopted by Section D of the 

 British Association at Newcastle, reprinted the Rules (2). The 

 Committee, of which lie was Chairman, was directed to consider 

 what changes, if any, it was desirable to make in them. Certain 

 alterations (six in number in all) were jjroposed to be made by the 

 Committee, as speciiied in their Eeport. This report (3) was 

 finally adopted by the Association in Section D at the Batli 

 Meeting on the 19th September, 1865. It is well to remark, 

 however, that the six proposed alterations of the original Code, 

 although specified at full length in the Eeport of the Committee, 

 were never incorporated into the text of the Stricklandian Code. 



In 1878, at the request of the General Committee ' of the 

 British Association, I prepared for publication a new edition of 

 the Stricklandian Code, to which I added the Report of the 

 Committee appointed at the Bath Meeting. This edition (4) was 

 published for the Association by Murray of Albermarle Street, and 

 copies of it may still be had on application at the offices of the 

 British Association. There are some here on the table. 



In 1877 the American Association for the Advancement of 

 Science took up the question of Nomenclature and appointed 

 Mr. W. H. Dall to investigate the subject. Mr. Dall made an 

 excellent report, which will be found printed in the volume of the 

 Association's Proceedings for 1878 (5). 



In 1881 the Societe Zoologique de Prance proposed a Code of 

 Rules prepared by a Committee. These were published at Paris 

 along with a report on the subject prepared by M. Chaper (6). 



In the following year (1882) the Congres geologique Inter- 

 national published a set of Rules on Nomenclature (7). Both 

 these codes were intended to apply to Zoology and Botany alike. 

 The rules in both cases are few in number, but are accompanied 

 by valuable commentaries. They do not materially affect the 

 special points now in question, except in rejecting generic names 

 previously employed either in Zoology or Botany. 



The highly elaborate and precise Code of Nomenclature which 

 was adopted by the American Ornithologists' Union in 1886, and 

 was published along with the first edition of the ' Check-list of 

 North American Birds ' (8), although generally based upon the 

 Stricklandian Rules, deviates from them in several material par- 

 ticulars. The most important of these is, the proposal to commence 

 Zoological Nomenclature with the tenth edition of the ' Systema 

 Naturae' (1758) instead of the twelfth (1766). The operation of 

 this rule, which will be again alluded to presently, has, as is well 

 known, caused very serious differences in the names applied to 

 the same birds by the English and American ornithologists. The 

 American Code of Nomenclature is also in conflict with us upon 

 the two other points which are proposed for special discussion this 

 evening. 



In 1891 the ' Allgemeine Deutsche Ornithologische Gesellschaft 

 zu Berlin' put forward their Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 

 which was adopted at their General Meeting at Frankfort a. Main 

 ' Seo ' Eepoi-t of the British Asaooiation,' 1865, p. 25. 



