6 
HAMLYN'S MENAGERIE MAGAZINE. 
For some time past I have felt much dissatisfied 
with the affairs of the Union, and avail myself of 
the present opportunity to state my reasons. 
(1) I do not like the way in which the Jour- 
nal is conducted on lines at variance with opinions 
expressed in "The Ibis List of Birds," 1915. That 
volume of 430 pages cost a great deal of money, 
and was intended to bring about greater uniform- 
ity in nomenclature. In this direction it has not 
succeeded. Neither the editor nor the contribu- 
tors to "The Ibis" seem to be bound by it, and 
names recommended for use are disregarded. To 
give an example. In a review of Dr. Shufeldt's 
paper "on the Osteology and systematic position 
of the diving birds Pygopodes" (" Ibis" 1904, p. 
658) Professor Newton wrote : — 
" We agree with Dr. Shufeldt that Ameri- 
can ornithologists have made a great distur- 
bance of nomenclature by transposing the ; 
name Colymbus from the Divers to the 
Grebes. Moreover we consider that the 
change, like many others proposed, is quote 
unjustifiable." 
In spite of this authoritative opinion, in which 
I entirely concur, Messrs. Hartert and Co., in 
their "Hand List of Birds," 1912, persist in the 
transposition of these generic names. 
The Committee of the B.O.U. in the appen- 
dib to the new "List of British Birds," 1915, 
properly pointed out (p. 399) that Latham in 1787 
very definitely adopted Linnaeus's genus Colym- 
bus for the Divers, and proposed Podiceps (rec- 
tius Podicipes) for the Grebes, and concluded by 
expressing the hope "that the Check List Com- 
mittee of the American Ornithologists' Union will 
see their way to return to the older and as they 
believe to the correct usage of the genus Colym- 
bus in the near future." 
'My point is that notwithstanding' this expres- 
sion of opinion, the editor of "The Ibis" has al- 
lowed contributors to adopt the objectionable 
transposition complained of. Other equally inde- 
fensible changes have been attempted in the 
"Hand List of Birds," notably the transposition 
of the scientific names of the Song Thrush and 
Redwing; but fortunately in this case the Com- 
mittee of the B.O.U. have very properly con- 
demned it. Would that they had displayed equal 
couraige in resisting other innovations. 
(2) I very much object to the constant changes 
of names that are made on the score of priority, 
and in defiance of the strongly worded protest that' 
was made by leading zoologists, on the initiative 
of Dr. Boulenger, at a meeting of the British As- 
sociation in 1908. (See "Field," September 12, 
1908. ) I was not present at that meeting or I 
should certainly have signed the protest referred 
to, having been long convinced of the confusion 
and inconvenience which have been caused by the 
reckless changes complained of. 
(3) I deplore also the amount of time ex- 
pended, and valuable space wasted in describing 
so-called "subspecies," based either on individual 
variation, or on the most trivial differences which 
are wholly insufficient to entitle them to recognu 
tion. 
If any particular bird can be shown to be 
specifically distinct from another to* which it is 
evidently nearly related, by all means give it a 
syecific name with a recognisable description; but 
if it differs only in such trivial particulars as mere 
shade of colour, slight difference in size, Or in- 
finitesimal variation in length of bill or wing-, such 
variations can surely be pointed out in a few words 
without burdening the list of species with new 
names. This practice therefore should be discour- 
aged by the Committee, and discontinued in "The 
Ibis" at all events. For it is not only of no practi- 
cal value, but *the results are most embarrassing 
and irritating to readers when descriptions of new 
subspecies are unaccompanied (as is generally the 
case) by any information concerning the haunts, 
habits, nesting, etc., of the newly named "forms." 
To insist upon the acceptance of such views 
as I condemn is to knock the life out of the study 
of ornithology, and to encourage a younger gen- 
eration to pay more attention to rule and compass 
than to the more fescinating and more useful 
study of the living birds and their geographical 
distribution. 
(4) I object further to the bestowal of* new 
names on old and well-known species on the pre- 
tex of their being "British forms" or "Continen- 
tal forms," regardless of the fact that most of 
them are regular migrants to an dfrom Europe, 
and therefore may be one day " British" and the 
next day "Continental." 
(5) I take up: a number of "The Ibis" and 
find birds that I have known all my life — or say, 
for fifty years — referred to' by new and strange 
names., some of which I never heard before, and 
which are not to be found in the " Index Generum 
Avium," so carefully prepared by Mr. F. H. 
Waterhouse, e.g., Ixobrychus for the Little Bit- 
tern. The worst of it is that these new names 
get adopted by those of a younger generation who 
think they ought to follow the latest fashion; they 
appear! in print, and before they have been long 
published some clever grave-digger disinters still 
older names fir which priority is claimed, and 
the newly proposed ones have to be relegated" to 
the already overburdened list of synonyms. 
(6) But the practice to which I take the 
greatest exception, on the score of the incon- 
