THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
with Glaux in 1850 ; a prior Glaux has been rejected as a nomen nudum, but 
this rejection is not yet absolutely final, and in the Mag. Nat. Hist., Vol. IX., 
April 1836, Ry lands correctly proposed Glaux for the Snowy Owl. 
I consider it important that in this place as full a record as possible 
should be given of the nomenclatural problems surrounding Australian bird 
names and their solution. Hence it seems necessary to reproduce a lot of 
old matter, so that the exact working that has brought a,bout the present name 
should be displayed. 
Perhaps the earliest attempt at determining genera of Owls may be laid 
down to the credit of Brisson, who recognised two, whereas Linne had united 
all the Owls under one genus Strix. Brisson utilised Strix for the Tawny 
Owl and provided Asio for the others ; whether by chance or intent. Pennant 
used Otus for a third division soon after. Then Dumeril proposed two other 
generic names, Buho and Surnia. None of these concern Australian students 
in any way, so that we arrive at Savigny. This worker began a monograph 
on the Natural History of Egypt and dealt with the Hawks and Owls only, 
upon a magnificent plan. In this case he laid down the genera of Owls 
with full details, and there restricted Strix to the species Strix fiammea 
Linne as interpreted by him, which was the Barn Owl. This error was 
perpetuated for a century, though at different times accurate workers drew 
attention to it. Thus Fleming in 1822 introduced Aluco as a generic term 
for the Barn Owl, recognising the misusage of Strix. Then Billberg in 1828 
fully explained the error and proposed Tyto for Strix as restricted by Savigny. 
Later Nitzsch, when he investigated the pterylosis of the nestlings and dis- 
covered the difference between that of the Barn Owl and other Owls, gave 
the name of Hyhris to the former. Newton in 1873 investigated the matter 
and determined the restriction of Strix to the Tawny Owl, and therefore used 
Fleming’s name Aluco for the Barn Owl. The prejudice of a great systematist, 
however, doomed this effort to correction to failure, for Sharpe became, 
quite wrongly, an antagonist of Newton and maintained Strix for the Barn 
Owl. As Sharpe had the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum at his 
disposal he made use of it, and utilising Strix in that place practically stifled 
criticism for many years. However, a generation arose who continued the 
search for truth without prejudice, and the American Ornithologists rejected 
Strix for the Barn Owl, using Aluco even as Newton had done. A few 
ornithologists on this side, as Rothschild and Hartert, accepted the American 
usage. In my “ Handlist ” I accepted Sharpe’s names, that list being based 
entirely on Sharpe’s Handlist. I began, however, my criticism of Australian 
bird names and this case came under consideration. My results appeared 
in the Nov. Zool., Vol. XVII., Dec. 1910, p. 500, as follows ; 
362 
