W. B. 2 
eric name. 
I do not agree with you and Faxon that the enforcement of this 
rule will necessitate more changes than its violation. It is diffi¬ 
cult for me to remember a number of cases, and I have no time to 
search for them. The following, however, seem to be more or less 
parallel: Do we not use the name Tringa p acifica Coues instead of 
Tringa americana Cassin, 1858, because ’the name Tri nga americana 
was preoccupied by Brehm's Pe l idna ajn ericana, 1855, for a different 
species? 
Similarly Hasbrouck’s name Ge o thlypis tr ichas roscoe, based on 
a Florida specimen, was rejected by Chapman because the name was pre¬ 
occupied by Sylvia roscoe Audubon. 
Still another case that might be mentioned is that of Aur i- 
parus. As I understand it the bird was first described by Sundevall 
as Fegit halus fla v iceps , from Mexico, and shortly afterward by Law¬ 
rence as Coniro strum ornatum, from Texas. Bryant assumed that Law¬ 
rence’s bird was a synonym of Sundevall’s, and transferred Lawrence’s 
specific name to the western subspecies, which he named Auriparus 
flaviceps ornatus. This action seems permissible according to your 
interpretation of the rule, but I do not know any one else who would 
be willing to accept it. 
Very truly yours, 
NjVnJvM ^ 
