Piranga rubra and Carpodacus mexicanus frontalis Preoccupied? — 
The change of Dendroica ceerulea to Dendroica rara (Ridgway, Auk, 
Jan., 1897, XIV, 97), which was promptly accepted by the A. O. U. Com- 
mittee, involves an interpretation of Canon XXXIII of the A. O. U. Code 
of Nomenclature to which little if any attention seems to have been 
called. It appears advisable at the present time to raise this question, 
inasmuch as it affects the validity of some other current names ; and this 
the more as in regard to it there seems to be neither unanimity of opinion 
nor uniformity of practice. Briefly stated, it is this : in considering the 
tenability of specific names, so far as preoccupation is concerned, shall 
any account be taken of homomyms which are mere combinations, e., 
not original descriptions? To illustrate: Motacilla ceerulea of Linnteus, 
1766, was called Sylvia ceerulea by Latham in 1790, — evidently a simple 
transfer of Linnreus’s species to another genus. Now, does this Sylvia 
ceerulea of Latham, 1790, preclude the use of Sylvia ceerulea Wilson, 1810, 
for another and widely different species, the former being now a Poliop- 
lila, the latter a Dendroica ? Canon XXXIII is apparently quite explicit 
upon this point, its text being as follows: “ a specific or subspecific 
name is to be changed when it has been applied to some other species of 
the same genus, or used previously in combination with the same generic 
name.” The phrase, “ or used previously in combination with the same 
generic name,” seems to leave no doubt of its meaning; and a strictly 
literal interpretation of this clause will treat alike, all combinations, 
whether or not they happen to be those of original descriptions. 
Such being the case, there are two names in our North American List 
which must be changed. The first of t^iese, Piranga rubra, for the Sum- 
mer Tanager, is untenable because Piranga rubra was previously used 
by Vieillot, as well as by many succeeding authors, for the species now 
known as Piranga erythromelas. The rejection of Piranga rubra for the 
Summer Tanager permits its employment for the Scarlet Tanager ; the 
former then becoming Piranga eestiva. This is rather a fortunate cir- 
cumstance, for these two birds will thus bear the names so long in use 
before the publication of the first edition of the A. O. U. Check-List. 
The specific term of Carpodacus mexicanus frontalis ( Fringilla. front- 
alis Say, Long’s Exped. to Rocky Mts., 1824, II, 40) must give way on 
account of Fringilla frontalis Vieillot (Nouv. Diet. d’Hist. Nat. 1817, 
XII, 181), which is a synonym of Sporopipes frontalis (Daudin). The 
next available name seems to be Carpodacus obscurus McCall (Proc. 
Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., June, 1851, 220), and the United States form of the 
House Finch will consequently become Carpodacus mexicanus ob- 
scurus. — Harry C. Oberholser, Washington , D. C. 
Auk, XVI, April, 1899, p p, 
Piranga rubra not Preoccupied. — Mr. Gerrit S. Miller, Jr., has kindly 
pointed out an error of statement in regard to the names of Tanagers 
published by the present writer in the last number of ‘The Auk.’ The 
remark is there made that Vieillot used the combination Piranga rubra 
for the Scarlet Tanager, thus precluding its subsequent employment for 
the Summer Tanager. As a matter of fact, however, Vieillot’s Piranga 
rubra (Ois. Am. Sept., I, 1807, p. iv, pi. I, fig. 12) is not the Scarlet, but 
the Summer Tanager, as examination of his references and figure 
clearly demonstrates. This mistake arose from taking Professor Baird’s 
identification of Vieillot’s Piranga rubra, — P. R. R. Rep., IX, 1858, p. 
300, where he cites it as a synonym of the bird now known as Piranga 
erythromelas, in which course he has been followed bv some other authors. 
Further comment is unnecessary; and the two birds in question remain in 
undisputed possession of their present names. — Harry C. Oberholser, 
Washington, D. C. Auk, XVI, July, 1899, Pj 9 . 278 -XS/, 
