152 THE AUSTRAL AVIAN RECORD [Vol. III. 



here give details of the publication and history of these names. 

 They were long known from their publication in the 

 Memoires of the Natural History Society of Paris, which 

 appeared in 1801. As, however, Daudin quoted them in 

 detail in his Traite d'Orn., which came out in 1800, an earlier 

 record was desirable. When Sherborn arrived at these 

 names during the preparation of the Index Animalium, 

 he undertook the task of tracing them to their source. In 

 this, as in every other important matter he has undertaken, 

 he succeeded, and proved that the article, just as it appeared 

 in the Memoires, and in Daudin, had been separately published 

 in 1799. He has given details of the trouble elsewhere, and 

 it is unnecessary to recount those here. Our fact is that 

 Lacepede's names were published in 1799, and the question 

 to our mind is whether they should date from this, or whether 

 at this place they can be regarded as nomina nuda, as it is 

 obvious, as a general rule, that the species cannot be recognised 

 from the original generic publication. By tradition or custom 

 certain species can be allotted to the generic names, but 

 decidedly not from the original generic publication. 



We initiated the inquiry into this matter in the Ibis, 1913, 

 p. 236, where we used Pachyptila Illiger 1811 in preference to 

 Prion Lacepede 1799, writing: "Prion Lacepede, ■ Tableau 

 Oiseaux, 1799, p. 14, is indeterminable." The diagnosis of 

 Prion is too vague for usage and we cannot recognise it. 

 The point, then, at issue is : Does Lesson's attachment of 

 species in 1828 validate Prion at 1799 or Lesson* at 1828? 

 This is an important point, and it should be arbitrarily decided 

 one way or the other. The laisser faire ornithologists wish 

 for a give-and-take solution, whereby custom will sanction 

 the name and reject another without consideration of the 

 facts. We cannot see any reason in such a procedure, as it 

 would prejudice the work of careless authors by the sanction 

 of custom, as has been done in the case of the Brissonian genera. 

 The clause in Opinion 46 covering this points reads : " If it is 

 not evident from the original publication how many or what 

 species are involved, the genus contains all of the species of 



