1876.] Bartramian Names in Ornithology. 23 
new names of his own. In the rest of the list, embracing the 
wading and swimming birds, the case is even still worse. Of 
these, numbering eighty-five species, nineteen are given by Dr. 
Coues as “ undetermined ;” fifteen others are guessed at only, 
three are synonyms, and fifteen of the names are polynomial! 
Of the thirty-three binomially named species determined by Dr. 
Coues, twenty-eight had been described in the Systema Na- 
ture; of the remaining five, Dr. Coues regards three as avail- 
able. Finally it appears that after excluding from Bartram’s list 
of two hundred and fifteen species the synonyms, the polynomial 
names, and the undeterminable ones, we have left but one hun- 
dred and forty-six, or about two thirds of the whole; and that 
of these one hundred and thirty, or thereabouts, had been named 
and described several years prior to the publication of Bartram’s 
work, mainly, too, in the Systema Nature, a book that to Bar- 
tram must have been one of the most accessible works on natural 
history. 
Dr. Coues, however, has indicated twenty Bartramian specific 
names and one generic name which he claims must be adopted, in 
order that Bartram may have his due as one of the fathers of 
American ornithology. We are, of course, not to judge the sci- 
_ entific works of a century ago by our present standards, but mak- 
ing due allowance for the two periods, it would seem that in the 
recognition ‘Bartram has already had, he has been most fairly — 
dealt with, and that further claims for him will only call forth a 
more rigid criticism of his merits as an ornithological writer than 
his work will well bear. Ten of these twenty-one Bartramian 
names, however, Dr. Coues claims, have been for a long time cur- 
rently in use, six of them having been “ erroneously ” attributed 
to Wilson and one to Audubon. The remaining ten Dr. Coues 
proceeds to newly “set up.” 
But let us examine Bartram’s work still further. First, re- 
specting Bartram as a binomialist: we find that out of two hun- 
dred and fifteen names in his list thirty-six are not binomial, or 
more than one in seven, — pretty frequent lapses for a ‘ bino- 
mialist on principle.” Secondly, we find that the Bartramian 
names already in current use or quoted as synonyms belong 
to species that he not only binomially named, but to species 
which he more or less fully described in his narrative, though 
some, it is true, are taken from among those of his list. Thirdly, 
it seems that the species for which Bartramian names have been 
currently employed, but “ incorrectly ” attributed to Wilson or 
