to 



xviii INTRODUCTION. 



1831. Phyllopnemte (Brehm ex Meyer). 



1836. Sylvicola (Eyton nee Swainson). 



1847. Rec/uloides (Blyth). 



1858. Acanthopneuste (Blasius). 



1875. Phyllojoseuste (Meyer fide Meves). 

 How is the unfortunate ornithologist to select his generic name from 

 such a series ? To solve this complicated problem Strickland drew up his 

 celebrated Rules of Nomenclature, which were afterwards adopted with 

 slight modifications by the British Association for the Advancement of 

 Science. 



So far as regards specific names, I have throughout this work set the 

 Rules of the British Association at defiance, being convinced that^ so far 

 as ornithology is concerned, they have done infinitely more harm than 

 good. Every day that they are retained increases the confusion which 

 they have introduced. No one has had the courage to attempt to carry 

 them out on a large scale ; but first one writer and then another intro- 

 duces a new name, changes are being constantly made^ and names are 

 occasionally being transferred from one species to another, until it abso- 

 lutely becomes necessary^ in many cases, to quote the English names of 

 birds as well as the Latin ones, the latter having been altered in obedience 

 to the Stricklandian code, so that they are sometimes absolutely unknown 

 to the general reader, or having been applied to different species, so that it 

 is impossible to tell which of them is meant. 



The mischief which these Rules have produced is bad enough ; but the 

 mischief which they must continually produce if any ornithologist is 

 found bold enough to carry them out is far greater ; and not a moment 

 should be lost by every ornithologist jealous of the prosperity and honour 

 of his favourite study in boycotting the new names, or exposing them in the 

 pillory of synonyms. 



The Stricklandian Code is admirable in theory, but utterly breaks down 

 in practice. The Rules of the British Association are most excellent if 

 applied in Utopia, but amongst a more or less muddle-headed race as 

 ornithologists always have been, and as we still remain, they can only be 

 productive of endless dispute and confusion. We cannot be trusted to 

 form an opinion as to whether the brief and often blundering diagnoses of 

 Linnaeus, Gmelin, or Latham are or are not clear definitions of the names 

 to which they are annexed. To expect unanimity on such diflScult ques- 

 tions is absurd. I have adopted a scheme which appears to me to be the 

 most practical of any which have been suggested. It may not satisfy the 

 requirements of poetical justice ; but it is at least consistent with common 

 sense. I adopt the specific name which has been most used by previous 

 writers. It is not necessary for me to encumber my nomenclature with a 

 third name, either to denote the species to which it refers, or to flatter the 

 vanity of the author who described it ; all my names are auctonim pluri. 



