No. 6.] THE AUSTRAL AVIAN RECORD 153 



the world which would come under the generic description 

 as originally published." 



It seems imperative that this question should be authorita- 

 tively answered, as a number of names, such as Prion, Pelecan- 

 oides, Fregata, Circus, Buteo, Astur, Milvus, are in use from 

 such introductions. There are few complications, as Daudin 

 in 1802 used the majority of these names in the traditional 

 interpretation; but are we to credit them to Daudin or 

 Lacepede ? What is the status of a name correctly proposed 

 in the interim between the proposal and the attachment of 

 species ? As Prion was not recognisable from the original 

 generic description should not Pachyptila be accepted ? The 

 International Commission appear to have no definite ideas 

 on the subject and leave it to individual workers to decide. 

 The only clean method of dealing with such problems seems 

 to be their adjustment by means of sub-committees upon 

 various subjects such as have been called into existence, and 

 we suggest that this point be adjudicated upon without prejudice, 

 as we note that this is the main check upon securing uniformity. 

 When we look at the results of the B.O.U. and A.O.U. Check 

 Lists and the general concordance, it should be quite an easy 

 matter to arrive at an absolutely uniform nomenclature as 

 regards Europe, America, Australia, without much change. 

 There appears to be work to be done in connection with extra- 

 Palaearctic birds in Asia and Africa before they are raised to 

 the level of the preceding, but when that is done a workable 

 nomenclature of the birds of the world will be achieved. 



Synonymic Catalogues, on the plan of Mathews' List of 

 the Birds of Australia, would then dismiss nomenclatural 

 problems into obscurity. Rectification of details would 

 continually go on, but we should have more time to display 

 ornithological problems and deal with the higher lights of 

 our science — the field naturalist and the anatomist both in 

 security as regards names, and the systematist assured of the 

 results of the studies of his co-workers in the field and 

 laboratory. 



We here correlate Lacepede' s system with that given by 



