Jan., 1905 | 
THE CONDOR 
29 
Ornithologists’ Union, and so far as possible the language of that admirable document has 
been followed. 
“We have, however, omitted certain matters which may be considered as self evident, and 
we have omitted all references to groups of higher than family rank. This has necessitated a 
change in the numbering of the different canons.” 
Canon VI of the new code differs from XVII of the A. O. U. chiefly in being simpler. “Pre- 
ference between competitive specific names published simultaneously in the same work, or in two 
works of the same actual or ostensible date (no exact date ascertainable), is to be decided 
as follows: 
“Of competitive names otherwise tenable, given by the same author, that one is to be pre- 
ferred which stands first in the text. In case of competitive names otherwise tenable, given by 
different authors of the same actual date so far as ascertainable, the one standing on the earlier 
page in its publication must be chosen. [Note.] The sole end of laws of nomenclature is that 
of fixity, and this is to be ensured only by the elimination among names once printed, of all 
element of choice by later authors. Even among twins, the laws of primogeniture recognizes 
one as first born. So with names on the same page. 
“Canon VII. [Compare A. O. U. XVIII] In case of competitive generic names otherwise 
tenable, published simultaneously in the same work, preference shall be given to the one stand- 
ing first in the work. Of competitive generic names of the same actual or ostensible date (no 
exact date being ascertainable) given by differeut authors, that one is to be taken which is pro- 
posed on the earlier page of the volume in which it appears. When the same generic name is 
given to two distinct genera of animals at the same date (as far as ascertainable), the name ap- 
pearing on the earlier page shall be deemed to have precedence.” 
Canon X differs widely from the A. O. U. rulings. Compare with XXI, XXIII. “The type 
of a genus can be indicated by the original author only. This may be done by direct statement 
that a certain species is a type species, the leading species, the “chef de file,” or by other phrase- 
ology conveying the same idea; it may be indicated by the choice of a Linnaean or other specific 
name as the name of a genus, or by some statement which shall clearly indicate an idea in the 
author’s mind corresponding in fact, if not in name to the modern conception of the type of a 
genus. The type of a Linnaean genus must be, in the phraseology attributed to Linnaeus, ‘the 
best known European or officinal species,’ included by that author within that genus. 
“In every case, the determination of the type of a genus shall rest on evidence offered by the 
original author, and shall be in no wise affected by restrictions or modifications of the genus in 
question introduced by subsequent authors, nor shall the views or the dates of subsequent authors 
be considered as affecting the assignment of the type of a genus. [Note.] It is believed that 
the principle that a generic name must be fixed by its original author is one of vital importance 
in nomenclature. All processes of fixing types by elimination or by any other means resting 
on subsequent literature, lead only to confusion and to the frittering of time on irrelevant ques- 
tions. The method of elimination cannot be so defined as to lead to constant results in different 
hands. In general it is much more difficult to know to what types subsequent authors have 
restricted any name than to know what the original author would have chosen as his type. Most 
early writers who have dealt with Linnaean species have consciously or unconsciously en- 
croached on the Linnaean groups rather than made definite restrictions in the meaning of 
the generic names. 
“Canon XI. [Compare with A. O. U. XXIV] In case a genus requiring subdivision 
or modification contains as originally formed more than one species, and the author of the 
genus does not in any way clearly indicate its type, the first species named in the text by the 
author as certainly belonging to this genus shall be considered as its type. [Note.] It can 
never be unjust to an author to regard his first named species as his type, and it can never lead 
to confusion to let the genus stand or fall with this first species. The same remark applies to 
composite species. 
“Canon XVII. [Second paragraph] As a name is a word without necessary meaning, and as 
names are identified by their orthography, a generic name (typographical errors corrected) is dis- 
tinct from all others not spelled in exactly the same way. Questions of etymology are not perti- 
nent in case of adoption or rejection of names deemed preoccupied. [Note.] This canon prohibits 
change of names because prior names of similar sound or etymology exist. It permits the use of 
generic names of like origin but of different genders or termination to remain tenable. All man- 
ner of confusion has been brought into nomenclature by the change of names because others 
nearly the same are in use. Thus the Ornithologists’ Union sanction the cancellation of Eremo- 
phila because of the earlier genus Eremophilus , of Parula because of the earlier Parulus, and of 
Helminthophaga on account of Heminthophagus. O11 the other hand, Pica and Picas are 
allowed. In ornithology this matter has been handled by a general agreement on the relatively 
