552 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXV. No. 640 



of Birds,' so far as the genera in these several 

 works are strictly comparable. 



(6) As to the changes necessary to correct 

 properly the generic nomenclature of the 

 Check-List. Here it is necessary to take note 

 of recent discoveries of overlooked names, and 

 of names transferred to earlier dates, as this 

 was doubtless Mr. Stone's basis. This is 

 seemingly quite a different question from that 

 of actual errors in the Cheek-List elimina- 

 tions. Although there are some thirty of 

 these discoveries, it is surprising to find that 

 not any of them affect the types of genera as 

 determined by elimination. 



The changes necessary on the basis of elimi- 

 nation are as follows: 



Podioeps (subgenus) becomes nameless. 

 Cyclorrhynchus becomes Phaleris. 

 Phaleris (subgenus) becomes nameless. 

 Geophlaeus becomes Phloeotomus. 



(c) As to the results of the strict applica- 

 tion of the first species rule. The changes 

 that would surely follow such action are as 

 follows : 



Golyrribus becomes Podiceps. 

 Podioeps (subgenus) becomes nameless. 

 Phaleris (subgenus) becomes nameless. 

 Cyclorrhynchus becomes Phaleris. 

 Dysporus (subgenus) becomes nameless. 

 Aix becomes nameless.' 

 Erionetta (subgenus) becomes nameless. 

 Melanitta (subgenus) becomes nameless. 

 Actitis becomes Tringoides. 

 Bonasa becomes nameless. 

 Tympanuchus becomes Bonasa. 

 Cathartes becomes Rhinogryphus. 

 Gypagus becomes Cathartes. 

 Conurus becomes Gonuropsis. 

 Aphelocoma becomes Cyanurus. 

 Acanthis becomes ^giothus. 

 Spinas becomes nameless. 

 Passerina becomes Plectrophenaai. 

 Gyanospiza becomes Passerina. 

 Pocecetes becomes Zonotrichia. 

 Zonotrichia becomes nameless. 



Summary. — According to Mr. Stone, the 

 Check -List contains 124 composite genera for 



' That is, if A. sponsa and A. galericulata are 

 considered as noncongenerio, as is done by various 

 late authorities. 



which no type was designated by the founder, 

 and of which the type has been fixed by 

 ' elimination.' 



The strict application of elimination in- 

 volves 3 changes of names, of which 2 are 

 generic, affecting the names of 2 species, and 

 1 is subgeneric, and hence does not affect the 

 names of species. Mr. Stone's estimate was 

 12 genera and 3 subgenera — an estimate over 

 500 per cent. gTeater than the reality. 



The strict application of the ' first species 

 rule ' involves 16 changes of generic names 

 not otherwise necessary, which affect 33 

 species and 18 subspecies, and 5 subgeneric 

 names, making 21 changes in all. Mr. Stone's 

 estimate was 16 changes, an under-estimate of 

 nearly 33 per cent. 



The ratio of the required changes by 

 elimination is as 1 to 41 by first species rule as 

 1 to 8, or 5 times as many by the first species 

 rule as by elimination. A number of other 

 genera that would be relegated to synonymy 

 by the first species rule are saved only by the 

 rule of tautonomy. 



Seven other lamentable changes in the 

 names of numerously represented genera of 

 American birds come under the spirit of the 

 first species rule and partly under its scope, 

 although urged on the basis of priority, in 

 disregard of a hitherto almost universally 

 recognized principle of nomenclature — the 

 designation of types by the founder of the 

 genus. It has been customary in selecting 

 types to consult the intent of the author, and 

 to accept his types even if only inferentially 

 designated. In 1827, Swainson published two 

 papers on birds, one a list of a collection of 

 birds from Mexico, the other describing many 

 new genera; this more general paper was sent 

 to the Zoological Journal for publication long 

 before the other was sent to the Philosophical 

 Magazine, which latter, however, was un- 

 fortunately published a few months before the 

 other. In the Zoological Journal paper were 

 described five new genera represented in the 

 Mexican collection reported upon in the Phi- 

 losophical Magazine. In referring species to 

 these unpublished genera he made a cross- 

 reference to Zoological Journal, No. 10, where 

 they were not only described but had their 



