102 Prof. Newton on the Assignation 
but occasionally occurring there. Had the bird been a Tawny 
Owl, one would think he would have recognized its specific 
identity with that which is so common in the Swedish woods. 
Besides this, though in the 1746 edition of the ‘ Fauna 9 he 
had cited as the same as this bird the “ Ulula 3 of Gesner, 
Aldrovandus, Willughby, and Bay, in his subsequent edition 
of the same work (1761) he substituted for these references 
the “ Aluco 33 of the last two authors, and of Albin, who had 
in the mean time published a recognizable figure; and there 
cannot be a doubt of their Aluco being the Barn-Owl. Be 
that as it may, the S. aluco of Linnaeus is not (as I unfortu¬ 
nately said it was) the type of his genus Striae, nor of Bris- 
soffis, but the S. stridula is the type of both. 
Now the evidence as to what must be deemed the original 
type of the Linnsean genus Striae is either “ perfectly clear 
and indisputable^^, or it is not. From what I have above 
urged I think it may be regarded as clear. One cannot doubt 
what is meant by the Striae of Gesner, Aldrovandus, Wil¬ 
lughby, Bay, and Brisson. Switzer, Italian, Englishmen, 
and Frenchman agree. Was the Swede, coming after them 
and quoting them all, likely to have intended that a new 
meaning should be attached to the word by his use of it with¬ 
out indicating that such was the case? If an ornithologist 
of the present day had the power of questioning Linnseus as 
to which species, according to modern notions, he would de¬ 
signate the type of his genus Striae , who can doubt what his 
answer would be ? “ Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab om¬ 
nibus—id accepi. 33 
But supposing this view of the case to be disallowed, owing 
to the difficulty of obtaining any answer from the great de¬ 
parted, and the evidence as to the Linnsean type be deemed 
inconclusive, then, in the words of the British-Association 
Codef, “the person who first subdivides the genus may affix 
the first and third, which are equal; hut the difference between all three 
is not much. On the other hand, in the Tawny Owl the first primary 
is very short, and the fourth is the longest. 
* Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, § 5. 
t Loc. cit 
