Recently published Ornithological Works. 511 
upheld that “ Zoological Nomenclature begins at 1758, 
the date o£ the Xth edition of the f Systema Naturae 5 of 
Linnaeusso, without wasting time in arguments which 
must necessarily be barren of results, we will merely express 
our regret at the adoption of this starting-point instead 
of the Xllth Edition (1766), considering, as we do, that 
this proceeding disposes of the last chance of a scientific 
language in common with our ornithological brethren across 
the water. Inasmuch as nearly seven pages are devoted to 
explanation and reasoning as to the propriety of this step, it 
may possibly occur to some cynical minds that herein our 
American friends do “ protest too much.’ 5 In Canon XL. it 
is laid down that “ the original orthography of a name is to 
be rigidly preserved, unless a typographical error is evident/ 5 
emendations of a purely philological character being rejected. 
So that because the original describer knew no better than to 
write Mstrelata and l&nicurus, &c., the erroneous orthography 
is to be perpetuated, although the new Code itself states that 
scientific names are to be in Latin or the nearest approach to 
it ! Even more objectionable is the adoption or retention of 
names given to a section of a genus or other group, as though 
they had been tbe names of defined and characterized genera: 
whereas many of them are merely nomina nuda. But enough 
of this; nor do we intend to say a word about the use of tri¬ 
nomials. Before leaving the first portion of the work, we 
would, however, remark that it is hardly consistent to select 
for reprobation Tetrao mlokosiewiczii, “ named after an 
obscure forester somewhere in Russia, 55 and not to bracket 
with it Synthliborhamphus wumizusume. 
The Check-List itself begins with the Pygopodes, and 
works upward to the Passeres, the first family being given as 
Podicipidse, in opposition to Dr. Elliott Coues, who in his 
f Key 5 renders it, correctly as we think, Podicipeefidse. We 
protest against the adoption of Gavia as the generic name for 
the Ivory Gull, Pagophila eburnea. Boie instituted the 
genus Gavia for the Ivory Gull and the Kittiwake, simply 
because they both had short tarsi and frequented rocks; 
but there seems to be no good reason for giving the preference 
