126 
PROCEEDINGS OE THE ACADEMY OF 
Habitat. — Seas and sea coasts of the northern hemisphere ; more particularly 
in higher latitudes. 
It is quite unnecessary here to go into any details regarding the specific 
characters of so long and well known a species, and one which is so very dis- 
tinct both in form and colors from any other of our continent. 
I am well aware that the adoption of the name under which I present this 
species, may be looked upon by many ornithologists as an unnecessary, or at 
least as an uncalled for innovation. In defence of the nomenclature adopted, 
I beg leave to offer the following considerations, which, it is hoped, will ex- 
onerate me from the charge of needlessly changing names, by proving that if 
we are to pay any attention to recognized rules of nomenclature, such a pro- 
cedure is unavoidable in the present instance, and that no other name than 
the one adopted can be used : 
In the first place, Moehring’s genus Buphagus is certainly based upon a bird 
which was afterwards the Laras catarractes of Linnaeus. His diagnosis (vide in- 
fra*) unmistakably refers to one of the Lestridince, while the species is fortu- 
nately exactly fixed by his reference to “ Hojeri” and “ cataract es.” Perhaps 
no one of his diagnoses is more definite than this one. This being the case, 
the only question is, are his genera to be adopted and used in ornithology ? 
I believe that the rule generally followed regarding Moehring’s genera, is 
that they are to be adopted when they can be certainly identified, provided 
that they do not conflict with subsequent Linnaean appellations. Upon this 
principle, many of Moehring’s old genera have been revived and adopted by 
Gray, and his example has been followed by Baird, and other ornithological 
writers. It is thus that such genera as Philomachus , Collyrio, Trogon , Uria, 
Catarractes , etc., have taken the precedence over more modern appellations, 
to which their priority entitles them. The rule, however, does not appear to 
have been so strictly carried out as it should be, if adhered to at all. Gray, 
for example, adopts Stercorarius of Brisson for the Jager, remarking “that it 
is supposed to be Buphagus of Moehring.” His procedure in this case is a 
little remarkable, since Bupihagus is certainly identifiable ; and there is no 
Linnaean genus with which it can conflict, — Linnaeus ranging all the Jagers 
known to him with the gulls, under Larus. With this restriction, which, it 
must be confessed, is rather a compliment to Linnaeus, than strict justice to 
other writers, the genera of Moehring are to be adopted when identifiable. 
The fact of that author not being a binomalist, — in fact, not dealing at all 
with species, — does not appear to be a vadid reason why his genera should be 
neglected any more than those of Brisson for example. I am decidedly in 
favor of the adoption for any genus of the first appellation that is proposed for it 
after the date of the first published works of Linnaeus, provided there be no 
conflict between them : considering the introduction of a definite form of 
nomenclature as beginning with that illustrious writer. 
Now, supposing that we do reject Moehring’s Buphagus, let us see what will 
be the consequence. “ Stercorarius Brisson 1760 ” is the name which of late 
has been most generally applied to the genus in question. But the type of 
Brisson’s genus is not the catarr hades, \ but the true parasitica, as is evident 
by his elaborate description, although no specific name is given ; and hence, 
if it is to be used at all, it must be for the genus of which parasitica is typical. 
But Brisson was a polynomalist ; and if we refuse to adopt Moehring’s names 
on this score, Brisson’s genera must also be rejected : to which procedure, of 
course, no naturalist would assent. 
Catharacta of Briinnich of 1764 comes next in order, and has as its type 
* Moehring. Genera Avium , , 1752, page 66, No. 71. “ Rostrum postice rectum, membrana callosa 
ad nares usque tectum, versus apicem incurvum, lateribus compressis. Femora extra abdomen. 
Digiti antici tres membrana intermedia toti cohserentes, posticus liber.” 
f Brisson, on page 165 of vol. vi. of his Ornithologie, ranges this species under Larus , calling it 
“ Le Goelaud brun, Larus fuscus.” 
[May, 
