1876.] Bartramian Names in Ornithology. 101 
and confusing ; I admit, as I deplore, the inconvenience and the 
difficulty. But a fact is no less a fact because it is a disagreeable 
one; and whether we like it or not, the fact remains that names 
` of species will continue to shift until the oldest one that is ten- 
able according to rule is recognized. Therefore the sooner a 
species is “ hunted down,” the better; and this is just what I 
undertook to do in the cases of afew of Bartram’s. I did it 
partly on the score of ‘ justice ” to that author, but this was not 
my main object. I am no sentimentalist in such matters, and if 
I thought it would be to the best interest of science to ignore 
Bartram, I should quietly do so. It is simply because I believe 
it best, in spite of transient inconvenience, to bring him to light, 
that I have done so, in an attempt to secure that very stability 
which Mr. Allen accuses me of disturbing. To speak my mind 
freely, I may add that I should have been disappointed, consider- 
ing that I had signally failed, had not my paper made some dis- 
turbance ; exactly that, effect was anticipated and fully intended, ` 
otherwise the paper would not have shown raison d’étre. And 
I am encouraged further to believe that the paper took its own 
step, however short, in the right direction, by the recollection that 
certain Fasti of my honored predecessor in this particular line of 
work, whose title I have had the presumption to revive, were re- 
ceived with wry faces and shrugs— and received, nevertheless. 
Tam perfectly satisfied to let my own be tested in the crucible of 
time, 
(5.) The remainder of Mr: Allen’s paper is chiefly devoted to 
the examination, seriatim, of the individual cases in which I claim 
Priority for Bartram. This portion of his paper is a fair and 
strong counter-argument to mine. It requires, however, no com- 
ment from me, since all this part of the subject, in which the gen- 
eral principle is not involved, is only left where I put it, in the 
ands of the experts, each of whom will determine for himself 
Which particular ones of Bartram’s names he can identify to his 
Satisfaction, and which he cannot. Without here scrutinizing 
the cases in which I believe Mr. Allen to be wrong, I wish to 
acknowledge one instance in which he shows that I am probably 
wrong — the case of Certhia pinus, No. 10, which I now see is 
Probably, as Mr. Allen says, Helminthophaga pinus, not Den- 
ræca pinus, as I too hastily assumed. ’ 
Finally, let me say a word respecting Mr. Allen’s suggestion 
taht I ought to have gone further, and attributed to Bartram the 
priority of discovery of the great law of geographical variation in 
