THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
the latter name was invalid as Ptilotus had been previously proposed by 
Fischer, and in this case both words were prepared from the same basis and 
with the same meaning. I used Meliphaga in my 1913 “ List ” but 
unfortunately it proved to be in exactly the same case, Melophagus having 
been introduced by Latreille in 1802. There has been some discussion about 
such cases, but it is obvious that one cannot have half a dozen names, derived 
from the same basis, only differing in a single letter, without inviting 
confusion ; thus Melliphaga and Mellithreptus and Melithreptes might be 
advanced as available, with many other variants which could be introduced. 
The words must have the same derivation before they can be considered 
invalid, as in the above instances, but if similar looking words have different 
derivations they are admissible, as Iicematops and Hcematopus are quite distinct. 
Errors of transliteration are amenable to emendation, and such words as 
Melophagus and Ptilotis come under this ruling as they may be amended into 
exactly the same form as the w r ords Meliphaga and Ptilotus respectively, but 
no legitimate emendation whatever can make Hcematops and Hcematopus 
into the same tiling, though Centropus and Centropodus are similar words, 
apparently distinct, but really from the same base and only differing in faulty 
transliteration. 
450 
