Reviews.



259



not the first body that has attempted a Code of Nomenclature.

It is hardly fair or just (as far as Britain is concerned at all

events) to say in the Preface ‘ we have neglected for more than

150 years one of the requisites of greatest importance’ (/.<?. a

Code of Nomenclature. In 1842, the Stricklandian Code, drawn

up by an influential Committee of the British Association, was first

published. It contained a code of rules which does not greatly

differ from the present rules of the International Committee, save

that the 12th edition of Linneus was taken as the starting point

instead of the 10th as at present agreed upon. It is, therefore,

obviously unfair to entirely ignore the labours of these earlier,

but not necessarily less able Zoologists.


We come yet to another point. After the publication of the

Stricklandian Code the names of the greater number of our British

birds became fixed, and it is, therefore, in our opinion, inadvis¬

able to change names that have been in existence for over half-a-

century or more, when the assumption of the suggested name is

founded on a matter of opinion rather than priority. We will just

take one case to illustrate our point. During the latter half of the

iStli century the Hen and Montagu’s Harrier were considered

the same species, but the females were thought to be a different

species from the males and known by the name of the ‘ Ringtail ’

Hawk. Albin figures a Ringtail on which figure Linnaeus

bestows the name ‘ pygargus.' Early in the 19th century

Montagu, a keen and critical ornithologist, discovers that the

so-called ‘Ring-tail’ is only the young male or female of the

‘ Hen Harrier.’ A discovery, by the way, which was brought

about by keeping them in confinement. He also discovers that

there are two species, now known as the Hen Harrier and

Montagu’s Harrier, and he names the latter cineraceus and con¬

siders pygargus as being a female Hen Harrier. According to

the Rules, both of the Stricklandian Code and of the Inter¬

national Committee, if Albin’s plate can be proved to be a

picture of the female Montagu’s Harrier ‘pygargus ’ must stand

for that species. Half-a-ceutury ago, Prof. Newton and others

carefully went into the matter and decided that pygargus did

not refer solely to a female Montagu’s Harrier, and, therefore,

could not be used for that species. In our opinion, this matter



