1896.] BULBS OF ZOOLOGHOAL NOMENCLiTUBB. 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 Turchts viscivorus, Linn., we 

 mean in fact Turdus viscivorus Linncei — that is, the Turdus visci- 

 vorus of Linnseus, Linncei 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 comma is 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 andGerman 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 

 a trinary one. In familiar names, such as Turdus 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. QHstrelata is written ^strelata, although 

 it is probable that Bonaparte, who was a good classical scholar, 

 only spelt it this way by a slip of his pen : Aitliyia is spelt Ayiliya, 

 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 : Pedicecetes 

 is written Pedioccetes, as originally misspelt by Baird, although 

 there can be no doubt that he meant by it an inhabitant (oicr/ri/s) 

 of the plain (ireSiot'). 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 Bvcco 



