IV 
Animated discussion settled certain main principles: — 
(1) “ The same name for the same bird” as on British and 
American lists. Thus Australians took their place along¬ 
side the ornithologists of Britain and America, and 
accepted to the full the principles of the International 
Code of Zoological Nomenclature and the decisions of 
the International Commission of Zoological Nomen¬ 
clature; 
(2) “ Large Geneia ’’ as used bv some British Ornithologists and 
advocated in America; 
(3) That where a series of races or forms connected up certain 
forms with others, the whole should constitute one species: 
(4) That a full synonymy which was available in Mr. Gregory 
M. Mathews’ lists should not be given, but that names 
used in recognized works on Australian birds should he 
listed under the species in connexion with which they 
had been used; 
(5) That no opinion as to the validity or otherwise of the many 
subspecies of Australian birds proposed in recent years 
should be expressed; 
(6) That “ one-letterisin ” should not he accepted, but that the 
decision of the Commission — that, though it was not 
desirable to give, in the future, names similar to others 
already in use, Ficus and Pica were both valid — should 
be applied to Australian bird names. 
Careful consideration has been given to the birds of Australia them¬ 
selves and to their correct names — generic, specific, and vernacular. 
Generic names have practically been accepted in full both by Mr. 
Mathews and by the Committee, so that little is in question there. The 
compromise by which agreement was reached is referred to later. 
Differences concerning specific names are now mainly in status. 
Mr. Mathews regards some of the species accepted for the Checklist 
as subspecies. As other members of the Checklist Committee have 
the advantage of knowing the birds concerned in the field, and have 
in addition been able to examine much museum material, it has been 
decided, after a re-examination in each case, that certain Australian 
birds listed by Mr. Mathews as subspecies should be retained as full 
species, that certain extra-limital species of Mr. Mathews’ lists were 
represented by distinct species in Australia, and that certain species 
accepted by Mr. Mathews were not entitled to specific rank. On such 
matters a collective opinion necessarily differs at times from that ot 
individual members of the Checklist Committee. 
Some of the specific names based by Dr. Latham in 1801 on the 
“Watling drawings” caused considerable trouble; four rejected by 
Mr. Mathews have been retained, though it is admitted that there arc 
some discrepancies in figure or description. The description generally 
is, how r ever, applicable to the bird so named and to no other known bird. 
Vernacular names have also been closely examined. Some in¬ 
definite names like Ground-bird have been replaced by more appro¬ 
priate names, suclx as Quail-thrush; some inelegant names such as 
