No. 636] SHORTER ARTICLES AND DISCUSSION 93 



Monocercus, Monocercis. These names all stand under the A. 0. 

 U. Code, as do also words like the following: Bolanda, Rolandra; 

 Oga, Ogoas; Orophia, Orophila; Menida, Menidm; Lyria, 

 Lyrcia; Passerma, Passerita; all of which differ only in the last 

 few letters as do those with terminations denoting gender, and 

 are equally liable to confusion by typographical errors. 



What justification is there for accepting names so nearly alike 

 as many of these but considering as homonyms such terms as 

 Nyciala and Nyctalus; Neftion and Nettium? The aim of codes 

 of nomenclature is to conserve names, not to make opportunities 

 for the creation of new ones. But the A. 0. U. custom of con- 

 sidering homonyms, names differing in terminations indicating 

 gender is a breeder of new names. This is clearly shown by two 

 notes^ published in a reeent number of The Auk, in which it is 

 asserted that Phaochroa Gould 1861 is preoccupied by Phwochr- 

 ons Laporte, 1840, and Elminia Bonaparte 1854 by Ehnimus 

 King, 1831, and a new name is proposed in each case. The 

 same criticism applies to certain other suggestions in connection 

 with Canon XXX of the A. 0. TJ. Code, namely those that would 

 homonymize such words as Athene and Aihena; Caniopus and 

 Contipns. Those who look with favor on homonymizing words 

 whet/her they differ only by endings denoting gender, whether 

 the root is taken from the Attic or other dialect, whether the 

 connecting vowel of compound words be a, i, or o, or for other 

 philological reasons should remember that there is no more 

 reason for stopping at one point than another in the path of 

 purism. Always there will be more and more advanced purists, 

 who would sink generic names differing far more widely." For 

 instance, consider the following pairs of names for which it has 

 actually been proposed that the second name in each couplet be 

 regarded as homonym: CalUtrkhe, Calothrix; Myosuros, My- 

 urns; Galarhoeus, Galactorhens ; Korycarpns, Corythroearpua; 

 lonacfis, laciis; Genyscoelus, CoeJogenus. 



Philology is an interesting and important science, but what 

 has classical purism to do with a hodge-podge of names such as 

 zoological iiomenrlature now is. with names coined, with names 

 classical, with those borrowed from nearly every language ancient 

 and modern? What would be the fate of nomenclature if the 

 purist were allowed to work his will with such names as: Ahudef- 



» The Aulc, Vol. 37, No. 2, April, 1920, p. 295, and p. 302. 



