18 SCIENCE. 
guess at what he intended todo, even if in 
rare cases we may be compelled to ignore 
an obviousintent. The trouble here is that 
when the bars are let down there is no limit 
to the license authors may take, for one 
reason or another. The case of Dendragapus, 
cited above as an illustration, shows to 
what strange conclusions such license may 
lead. It is purely a matter of opinion 
whether obscurus and canadensis are gener- 
ically separable. For those who think they 
are not, the only course open is to treat 
them as members of one genus, and to take 
the oldest tenable name available for the 
group, in accordance with a fixed principle 
of nomenclature especially provided for 
such emergencies. The first tenable name 
happens in this case to be Dendragapus. 
If this is ‘puerile, unscientific and im- 
moral,’ there is no help for it, even under 
the ‘Merton Rules.’ All it amounts to is a 
difference of opinion between ornithologists 
as to the value of the differences which dis- 
tinguish the two species obscwrus and cana- 
densis. 
Rule 30 provides, among other things, 
that “‘ an orthographical correction may be 
made by emending a name wrongly formed.” 
This is not an innovation, as the same pro- 
vision is found in other codes. But it is 
diametrically opposed to Canon XL. of the 
A.O.U. Code, which provides that “the 
original orthography of a name must be 
rigidly preserved, unless a typographical 
error is evident.” Sound and weighty 
reasons are given in the A. O. U. Code for 
its adoption ; it is in accord with the prac- 
tice and advice of many eminent authori- 
ties—some of whom lived before the A. O. U. 
Code was thought of, and were scholars as 
well as naturalists; and, while still repel- 
lant to some, it is obviously gaining ground, 
as there is an increasing number of writers 
who consider fixity of names as of higher 
importance than the correction of grammat- 
ical or philological imperfections in their 
[N.S. Vou. VI. No. 131. 
construction. Not only is this view shared 
very generally by American mammalogists, 
but we have recently found that it has 
strenuous advocates among eminent special- 
ists in other departments of zoology, nota- 
bly in entomology. 
When we consider that purists and 
classicists are often at loggerheads among 
themselves over the emendation of a name; 
that names are often ‘emended’ out of all 
resemblance to their original form and be- 
come, to all intents and purposes, new 
words; that, when less modified, the initial 
letter is often the part affected, and that 
through this change the name takes a new 
place in all indexes and in all alphabetic 
lists where it appears, resulting in an in- 
convenience of serious magnitude—it seems 
far the lesser of two evils to put up with 
here and there an orthographic abomination 
than to sacrifice stability of nomenclature 
to philological refinement. Carelessness 
or ignorance in the construction of names 
is to be deprecated and frowned upon, as 
it isin the remarks under the much abused 
Canon XL. of the A. O. U. Code, which, 
therefore, does not place‘a premium on 
ignorance or carelessness,’ but simply 
chooses by far the lesser of two evils. It 
conforms to the whole spirit of the Code, 
which aims at stability in names, and the 
elimination of every element of instability 
that may arise from personal preferences in 
matters where opinions must inevitably 
differ to a greater or less extent. Even my 
fellow critic of the Merton Rules cannot 
agree with Lord Walsingham as to the ex- 
tent emendation is allowable, as in the 
above-cited case of changing cretidactylus 
to gypsodatylus. 
As to the case of Leptotila, dwelt on at 
length above, if ‘tales out of school’ were 
admissible, the inside history of its adop- 
tion by the committee would afford an 
amusing commentary on some of the re- 
marks above made. Suffice it to say that 
