No. 5.] THE AUSTRAL AVIAN RECORD 121 



" Koelreuter is binary, but not binomial, in this paper." It 

 seems that Koelreuter's name will displace some later one, so 

 that its determination should be undertaken by Palsearctie 

 students at once. 



MONTIFRINGILLA. 



On p. 16 of the B.O.U. List this genus name is used as of 

 Brehm (Isis, 1828, col. 1277). The paper referred to is simply 

 a list of names accompanied by vernaculars, and as it ostensibly 

 could not be legally accepted without advice, the matter 

 was referred to the International Commission on Zoological 

 Nomenclature and Opinion No. 48 was furnished; this Opinion 

 laid down the rule that in the cases where the names were 

 based on nomina nuda only, they must be rejected. This case 

 falls under that ban, as two species are included, M. nivalis 

 Br. and M. glacialis Br., both nomena nuda at this time. In 

 1831 Brehm utilised these names in his Vogel Deutschlands, 

 where the species were fully described and the names legally 

 date from this place. In the meanwhile, however, Kamp, 

 in the Skizz / Entwick. Nat. Syst., p. 139, 1829, had correctly 

 proposed Chionospina for nivalis alone, and this name must 

 now come into use. — Chionospina nivalis. 



Pyrrhula pyrrhula. 



The subspecies names of the British and Mid-European 

 forms need rectification. To avoid tautonymy Koch, Vieillot, 

 Temminck, Macgillivray and others proposed new specific 

 names thus : Pyrrhula rufa, P. europcea, P. vulgaris and P. 

 pileata. The first named has priority but it is purely a sub- 

 stitute name for Loxia pyrrhula Linn., though Koch described 

 thereunder Bavarian specimens, ignorant of the differences 

 from the typical subspecies. Vieillot' s name is in the same 

 case, as he did not separate the subspecies, though he recorded 

 the differences. Consequently neither have any valid standing 

 as subspecific names. Macgillivray' s name is exactly parallel, 

 and his other equivalent names have been rejected. It is 

 accepted in the B.O.U. List, p. .358, that " the British form 

 is less clearly separable, but the female of the British form 



