168 Letters, Extracts, and Notes. 



Ornithological tyros like myself who may he engaged, as I 

 happen at present to he^ on the study of the New Zealand 

 avifauna, must either use the old '^ antiquated ^^ nomenclature 

 or wait till our new High Priests inform us why Hypoleucus, 

 for instance, is to replace, and how it differs from, Phala- 

 crocorax. To take another example : Why is the type of 

 Stictocarbo now re-designated punctatus, instead of gaimardi ? 

 Surely, if the type falls for any reason^ the genus falls 

 with it, 



I shall put a strong curb on my pen if I may he permitted 

 one further short criticism. On p. 420 a new species is 

 described as Nesierax jjottsi on a ^^ presumed (italics the 

 writer's) smaller form " of Bush Hawk. " If later investi- 

 gation," so the authors continue, " proves that the smaller 

 species is non-existent as ive anticipate (italics as before), we 

 also suggest (italics ditto) that the North Island form will 

 prove separable from the South Island one and the name 

 here given will then be available for that." Is it scientific 

 or according to any existing laws of nomenclature to create 

 a new species on such a basis of conjecture? Moreover, is 

 the future worker on New Zealand ornithology to be dictated 

 to as to the naming of a species that comes for description 

 before him ? No author has any right to prepare before- 

 hand a list of names for hypothetical birds and try to tie his 

 future fellow- workers to their use and then calmly claim the 

 priority for such designations. If " as we anticipate " the 

 smaller species should turn out to be "non-existent," and 

 the North Island form should prove not " separable from 

 the South Island one,'"'' then the literature of the subject has 

 been burdened by a useless name, which might have better 

 remained in the ovary of the future. 



I am. Sir, 



Yours &c., 



KecIcliiFe, Hknry O. Forbes. 



Beaconsfield, 



15 Nov., 1913. 



