100 Bartramian Names in Ornithology. © [February, 
ogists to deal with, though there have been such before and since 
Bartram’s time ; but I never made his general standing as an or- 
nithologist an argument in favor of adopting certain of his names. 
Yet this wholly uncalled-for attempt to depreciate Bartram’s 
general ability as an ornithologist occupies much of Mr. Allen’s 
paper. 
(2.) Respecting our author as a binomialist: Those who are 
sufficiently interested may compare Mr. Allen’s paper with mine 
on this point, to find that we agree exactly, though Mr. Allen 
has had recourse to the arithmetic of the case, which I did not 
consider necessary. If the figures should show that Bartram 
lapsed from binomial propriety every other time, instead of about 
once in every seven times, the circumstance would absolve no 
one who uses Corvus carnivorus, for instance, from using Corvus 
frugivorus too. This is, in substance, all I ever claimed. 
C8.) Mr. Allen accuses Bartram, by implication, of giving cor- 
rect names “ when he happened to know them,” otherwise of pre- 
ferring to coin names as the easiest way out of. a difficulty, not 
having the means of ready identification, or not caring to take the 
trouble required for determination. Now, in the first place, this 
is a gratuitous assumption that Bartram did not do the best he 
knew how, and, as such, surely indefensible from any standpoint. 
Secondly, supposing Bartram was a fraud, and did ‘ gobble ” all 
the species he could, what has that to do with the question? 
The fact that he did coin names simply imposes upon us the 
necessity of recognizing such of them as are binomial, are identi- 
fiable by description accompanying, and possess priority. His 
motives are not proper subjects of public inquiry. If all the 
species which early and late ornithologists have “ borrowed ” and 
printed as their own were canceled, what a relief it would be to 
the synonymical lists! 
(4.) Mr. Allen inquires, with some warmth, whether this sort of 
thing “ tends to the best interest of science.” It may or may 
not, I reply, but I believe it does, and that time will show it 
does. At any rate, the reason Mr. Allen adduces for his belief 
that it does not is not a sound one. He says, “If the example 
Dr. Coues is here setting be followed, there will be no stability 
to our nomenclature for a long time, but only, except perhaps to 
a few experts, the most perplexing confusion.” But I contend 
that the only possible road to stable nomenclature is that which 
leads to the very bottom of the matter. In the nature of the 
case, the process of striking “ bed-rock” is desultory, uncertain, 
