104 On the Assignation of a Type to Linncean Genera. 
the genera defined in it can stand of their own right from that 
date, under the exact words of the rale.” That this edition 
exists, I believe there is no doubt, though I have never set 
eyes on a copy. Had I done so, and found it to agree in 
this respect with the edition of 1760, I should be sure that 
the preceding paragraph was unnecessary; but lacking the 
opportunity of knowing whether this is the case or not, 
I am unable to substantiate what would be absolutely 
conclusive. 
And now to meet such of Mr. Sharpens objections as X have 
not already, X trust, disposed of. It is clear that considerable 
doubt must exist as to Linnaeus's Stria; aluco ; and therefore 
one cannot declare that his “No. 9 is identical with No. 7.” 
It is impossible that Brisson's arrangement “ influenced Lin¬ 
naeus in his classification for Linnaeus had already divided 
the Owls into “ Auriculatce '' and “ Inauriculatce '' in the 10th 
edition of his ‘ Systema,' written three years before* Brisson's 
work appeared ; but it is probable that both authors followed 
the earlier systematists, Willughby and Bay, in this obvious 
division. It is hardly consistent with fact to say of the genus 
Stria; that “no type had previously been assigned" until 
Savigny designated S. flammea as such; for, even if Linnaeus's 
type be disallowed, we have that of Brisson plainly determined, 
and consequently Savigny was not “ perfectly justified'' in 
doing as he did, while, on the other hand, Fleming, in sepa¬ 
rating S. flammea as the type of his new genus Aluco, and 
restoring S. stridula to the genus Stria;, was acting strictly 
within rule. Of the praise which Mr. Sharpe awards to Sa¬ 
vigny, I have only to say that perhaps, had the latter's am¬ 
bitious work been completed, we might possibly have hailed 
him as a reformer of nomenclature superior to Linnaeus; but 
perhaps it is as well that the f Oiseaux de l'Egypte et de la 
Syrie' remains a fragment; for no one can go over the long 
list of references to ancient authors, on which most of his 
decisions are based, without seeing that a large number of 
them are, and must be, hypothetical in the highest degree. 
* This edition was published in 1758$ but the preface is dated 24th 
May, 1757. 
