THE BIEDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
remarks should have been overlooked, as now — eighty odd years afterwards — 
the same, and only, conclusion is arrived at, and many ornithologists still 
wish to quibble over the consequences. 
“In consequence of this knowledge of the invalidity of the usage of 
Strix Linne for the Barn Owl, Billberg proposed Tyto for that group. It has 
been claimed that Tyto is preoccupied by Tyta, also proposed earlier by Billberg. 
In this connexion it might be observed that Heine {Nomencl. Mus. Hein. 
Orniih., p. 252, 1890) proposed Tyto to replace MyotTia, ‘ on grounds of purism.’ 
The meaning of ‘ tyto ’ {fide Richmond, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., Vol. XXIV., 
p. 720, 1902, when recording this name) is given as ‘the night-owl,’ while 
another authority cites as the meaning of ‘ tyta,' ‘ night-flying,’ apparently 
two different words.” 
Such is the history of Tyto and Flammea, and while Hartert, Jourdain, 
Ticehurst and Witherby in their Hand-list of British Birds maintained the 
former, the Brit. Orn. Union, 2nd edition. List of British Birds have preferred 
Flammea. 
At present there is no stability in connection with such queries as to 
what constitutes invalidity as regards spelling of names, and I here retain 
Tyto. 
It might oe observed that when Linne proposed Strix in the tenth 
edition of his Systema Natura in 1758, he did not know the Barn Owl, and 
this species is not included among his list. Hence, by no legitimate method 
can Strix be used for the Barn Owls. Further, by tautonymy, the type of 
the Linnean Strix is the Tawny Owl, and this agrees with the Brissonian 
usage and the conclusions of Xewton and the Americans. Upon these two 
matters unanimity has resulted, and the only matter in abeyance is 
unfortunatety the one that concerns Australian students, the acceptance or 
rejection of Tyto. 
364 
