VI 
PREFACE 
not, why not? They will have to explain clearly their reasons 
for differing from me, and I have little fear as to their ultimate 
conversion. 
To the ornithological students, and to the critics on the 
staffs of the popular daily and monthly journals who differ from 
me, I should like once more to explain my reasons for employing 
the names I do. I have not adopted the names given in the 
tenth edition of Linnteus “Systema Naturte” {1758), but have 
preferred those of the twelfth edition (1766). Therein I follow 
the rules of the British Association. American and German 
ornithologists start their nomenclature from 1758, because in this 
year Linnseus 6rst promulgated a strictly binomial nomenclature. 
Good ! But, after death, a man would surely wish to be judged by 
his most recent work, not by his earlier publications. Therefore, 
it seems to me most reasonable to adopt the nomenclature of 
thetwelftn edition of the “Systema Naturm,” as being the last 
edition published by Lmnaeus himself, and containing his 
latest notions. In the eight years which elapsed since the 
publication of the tenth edition, Linnaeus must have felt that 
his knowledge had gained somewhat, otherwise he would not 
have altered any of his work in his twelfth edition. Few critics 
have fallen foul of me on this score, and indeed the changes 
of nomenclature would be trifling, even if this adoption of the 
1758 edition became universal, needless as it seems to me. 
The chief point of offence laid to my door is rather the 
employment of an identical generic and specific name, and 1 
find that all my explanations on the subject have failed to 
convince the “ man in the street.” I should like to explain 
myself once more, and I trust that the following example (£x 
tino disce omnei) may suffice to illustrate the principles of 
nomenclature that I champion. 
I take it th.at no one, whetlicr adopting the tenth or the 
twelfth edition of Linnicus’ “ Systema,” will object to the prin- 
