540 EXCURSUS ON THE NAMES OF SHRIKES 



of nomenclature which are recognized by the great majority of 

 naturalists. I submit the following resumS of the argument : — 



1. Gollyrio Mcehring, 1752, is not available, being given by 

 a non-binomialist prior to the establishment of the binomial 

 nomenclature. 



2. Lanius Linnaeus, 1758 and 1766, has no specified type ; 

 no type can be inferred except by the arbitrary method of 

 considering the first species given by Linnaeus as typical ; such 

 assumed type is different in 1758 and in 1766 ; in subdividing 

 the genus, an author is free to make any one of the Linnsean 

 species of Lanius the type of a new genus. 



3. All the genera which have in fact been proposed for species 

 which were included by Linnseus in Lanius are based upon 

 other species than L. exeubitor and its allies, excepting Collurio 

 Vig., 1831, which is antedated by Collurio Kaup, 1829, the lat- 

 ter being based upon a species of a different genus, to wit, 

 Enneoctonv^ Boie, 1826. 



4. Lanius therefore, in a restricted sense, becomes tenable 

 for the genus of which exeubitor is typical, upon that exclusion 

 of the several heterogeneous elements which authors have 

 successively effected, and it is untenable for any other genus, 

 all the rest having been provided with other names. 



From such considerations of the technical aspects of the case 

 which affect our nomenclature, the transition is easy and natural 

 to the signification of these names, and their original applica- 

 tion to the birds of the present geuus. 



KoXXupiiuv is used by Aristotle as the name of a bird, of what 

 kind, however, cannot be determined. Sundevall does not 

 identify the name, and the lexicons, some of which do not give 

 it at all, merely define it as the name of some bird — " avis 

 qucedam incerta". Nor do I know the etymology of the word; 

 none of the authorities consulted give any derivation; it 

 has no obvious connection with the Greek xoXXuptov, which was 

 a kind of medicament, either an eje-salve or a suppository, 

 according to different definitions, and which iu the Latiu shape 

 of eoUyrium is now a common medical term for an eye-wash. 

 From xoXkupiwv comes the familiar term Gollyrio or Collurio, 

 used both in a generic and a specific sense in modern orni- 

 thology. 



Gesner indeed treats "de Collvrione", but only briefly, and 

 evidently without any clear idea of what Aristotle meant by the 



