GAMP BELL — Be-narainy Australian Birds. 233 



quently Gould's classification is somewhat obsolete.-' In refe- 

 rence to "The National Rules of Zoological Nomenclature" Mr. 

 Campbell asks, "Who has copies of these rules in the Common- 

 wealth?" Should any one break an act of the law, it would 

 be no excuse to say one did not read the act. The same with 

 the ornithologist, if he does not keep abreast of the literature 

 on the subject, ornithology will not wait for him, and he will be 

 left behind. The next question is, "Who made them?" (the 

 rules). These rules were made by the most eminent zoologists 

 of the world, and as for Australia taking part in forming the 

 rules, I would be very much surprised if such savants who 

 composed the Committee, Avould think of including an Austra- 

 lian ornithologist after the class of ornithology which 

 has been expounded in Australia. That the Law 

 of Priority should suit one branch of zoology and 

 not another is not in the least consistent. If The 

 Emu, as Mr. Campbell says, is "to popularize the study 

 of our native birds", and not to contain scientific matter, 

 the union will suffer; for it will become a bird lovers' club. 

 How many of Gould's children who were born in Australia have 

 nothing to do with nomenclature, nor has sentiment anything 

 to do with science. John Gould did good work in Australia, he 

 was a very shrewd business man, and made his work pay. No 

 man gave less credit to some who helped him beyond measure 

 in Australia. Mr. Campbell speaks of assistants who took up 

 the work for payment, but not a word about a great field orni- 

 thologist who spent thousands, put up with great hardships, 

 took more than one trip to England to help the author of "The 

 Birds of Australia" in his work, with notes and material which 

 never cost John Gould a penny, and this man was hardly men- 

 tioned in the big work. Surely Mr. Campbell must know that 

 the rulings of the International Congress are for the world and 

 that all scientific ornithologists over the face of the globe must 

 work by them. If Mr. Campbell means that the so called 

 Official Check-list when he says "Australian Ornithologists in 

 taking Gould, are precisely on the same footing and adopting 

 the same rule as did the old world ornithologists in regard to 

 the Xth Linnaeus," all I can say is that, I had better give 

 the reviews of the leading ornithological journals upon that 

 list. The Auk, vol xxx., p. 447, 1913, says— "These prin- 

 ciples we think constitute the most remarkable code of nomen- 

 clature that has been framed in recent times. . . . The 

 members seem to have failed utterly in comprehending the 

 problem before them. We regret exceedingly that we cannnot 

 endorse this check-list for general use. Aside from all ques- 



