Recent Literature. 
2 45 
but we have little sympathy with the recent upheaval in this respect, 
nor do we .believe that the names at present advocated will prove more 
stable than those which have preceded them. Stejneger has lately 
shown* that neither Coues nor Ridgway reached the foundations ; and 
doubtless some one of an equally enquiring mind and with an imagination 
still better adapted to interpreting ancient descriptions of uncertain 
application, will yet come forward and work fresh havoc. The trouble 
with this kind of investigation is that sufficient regard is rarely paid to the 
rule that a description must be clearly defined, and that “definition prop- 
erly implies a distinct exposition of essential characters.” We have not 
forgotten Mr. Allen’s eloquent protest against the adoption of certain 
Bartramian names, and there can be no doubt that his objections will apply 
equally well to the descriptions of many other early authors. Moreover, 
while we distinctly disclaim any personal application of such a thought, 
we cannot help believing that if the practice of giving the authority for 
the arrangement of names were discontinued, there would be less of this 
meddling with nomenclature. At all events the evil is a terrible one, and 
it must be stopped, even if the whole code has to be thrown overboard and 
a new one instituted. So extreme a course, however, is probably unneces- 
sary, for some simple statute of limitation can doubtless be devised which 
will answer all the required ends. Dr. Coues’s recent suggestion,! that 
fifty years of unchallenged usage shall fix a name forever, is an excellent 
one, but the time of probation might, with advantage, be reduced to 
twenty-five years. Such a provision, with one requiring all proposed 
changes to be referred to a tribunal composed of not less than three 
prominent ornithologists, who might meet for the purpose at intervals 
of say once in four years, would effectually prevent any further tampering 
with a system which should be sacred, but which has become a mere 
football. 
With respect to genera we are sorry to notice that Dr. .Coues has aban- 
doned certain old-time principles and adopted many of the sub-divisions 
which he rejected in the edition of 1873. Chief among these are Actodro- 
mas, Arquatella, Pelidna, and Ancylochilus, in Tringa; Symf hernia and 
Rhyacophilus in Tot amis; Herodias, Garzetta, Hydranassa, Dichro- 
manassa, Florida, and Butorides in Ardea, and Chroicocefhalus in 
Larus. Turdus, however, is retained for all the Thrushes of the 
sub-family Turdinoe, and Vireo , in its euphonious simplicity, stands 
for all the Vireos. While w*e would not be understood as condemn- 
ing all the above changes, we consider the majority of them arbitrary, 
and hence uncalled for. The ever increasing tendency to institute new 
genera on differences of structure which in other classes of Vertebrates 
would be considered no more than well-marked specific characters, is one 
of the banes of modern ornithology. Our systematists seem to have lost 
sight of the uses for which genera were primarily intended. Of this 
* Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., June, 1882, pp. 28-43. 
f This Bulletin, Vol. VII, pp. 178, 179. 
