X 
PREFACE. 
shared by many of our colleagues. We contend that when 
Linnaeus, or any other of the Fathers, gave a name to a bird, 
no power on earth should be allowed to change it, by taking 
their specific name and making it the title of a genus. The 
Linnean name, when perfectly capable of identification, as it 
generally is, should be held sacred, even when the result is 
the duplication of the specific name, as with the Linnet, the 
Fringilla cannabina of Linnaeus, and the Goldfinch, the Frtn- 
gilla carduelis of Linnaeus. In process of time both these 
species have been separated (and rightly) from the genus 
Fringilla , and the earliest generic names turn out to be 
Cannabina of Boie, and Carduelis of Brisson. Hence the 
names Carduelis carduelis (L.) and Cannabina cannabina (L.). 
Nor is this system of nomenclature without one great advan- 
tage, viz., that in nearly every case the duplicated name 
descends’ upon the typical species of the genus, which be- 
comes at once recognisable by such duplication of the generic 
and specific names. 
Lastly, there is one other matter to which we would direct 
the earnest attention of our brother ornithologists. It is a 
question that can best be settled by a general conclave of 
ornithologists, which should not be longer delayed ; and this 
is the question of the alteration of generic names, about the 
priority of which there can be little or no uncertainty. We 
allude to some of the names brought to light by the diligent 
research of our colleague Dr. Stejnegcr in America ; such, for 
instance, as the adoption of Plectrophenax instead of Plectro- 
phanes for the Snow-Buntings, and the name rEgithalus instead 
of Acredula for the Long-tailed Tits. It is much better to face 
these changes fairly and squarely, and by their adoption, if they 
are found to be correct, to introduce an uniform system of no- 
menclature on both sides of the globe. 
In a work of the present size, published at a price which 
