Auk, XV, July, 1898, 
Notes on Generic Name's of Certain Swallows. — in the raid on nomen- 
clature made a few years ago Dr. L. Stejneger seems to have been 
peculiarly unfortunate. I have not yet trailed him anywhere without 
finding that either he did not go far enough in the right direction, or 
else he went in the wrong direction. The A. O. U. is to be commiserated 
in unwittingly adopting sundry changes Dr. Stejneger proposed and 
sought to impose on nomenclature. For example, he undertook to upset 
the established names Hirundo and Cotile by substituting Chelidon for 
the former, and Clivicola for the latter, after Forster, 1817. It appears 
from Sharpe’s introduction to the Monograph of Hirundinidce , p. xxxv, 
that Hirundo Linn, was characterized by Schaeffer, Elem. Orn. 1774, with 
II. rusti r a as type. If Dr. Sharpe’s method of determining the type of 
a genus be not at variance with A. O. U. canons, this operation of 
Schaeffer’s throws out Forster’s later attempt to transpose Hirundo and 
Chelidon , and we may happily revert to the status quo ante helium. 
Again, Dr. Sharpe, p. xliv, shows that Riparia Forster, 1817, has that 
sort of priority over Clivicola Forster, 1817, which results from previous 
pagination, and I believe we recognize that myth officially; if so, the 
name of the Bank Swallow becomes the tautonym Riparia riparia , or 
else R. europcea , or else R. cinerea. It is but justice to Dr. Stejneger to 
say that he was aware of this (Pr. Nat. Mus. V, 1882, p. 32), only he 
“preferred to accept the name Clivicola ,” though the reason for his 
preference is obviously a futile one by our rules. It is also due him to 
add, that he only “ supposed ” his generic synonymy of Swallows to be 
correct {ibid. p. 31). But neither supposition nor preference has any 
place in the A. O. U. Code. I can suppose a good many things that are 
not canonized in the code, and certainly prefer some things that are not 
canonized. For example, I “prefer” Riparia to Clivicola , and I 
“ suppose ” Dr. Stejneger wrong about Hirundo. The case thus raised by 
Dr. Sharpe should come up for consideration at the next meeting of the 
Union. — Elliott Coues, Washington, D. C. 
CuJ/x. .xv, 
