WCP2315

[1]

Magd[alene]. Coll[ege]¹

6 April 1875

My dear Wallace,

I have been longer than I expected in answering your questions² — but I hope the delay will have put you to no inconvenience.

In a general way I think you are right to follow the latest authority in matters of system.³ & no one can gainsay Sclater's⁴ being such on most points — though I think him deficient in taking broad views. Salvin⁵ really had nothing to do with the 'Nomenclator'.⁶ I don't mean to say that it does not express his views, but merely that it was brought out ^{in his absence} without his being consulted. I am very far from pinning my faith entirely to external[?] structure — though I regard it as being very important — but I try to be guided by [2] a combination of all the characters I can find & this enables me to discard those which are plainly adaptive & therefore not fit to be used in distinguishing Families. Of such kind for instance are the external characters of Glareola⁷ and many other groups.

I think I answered your question about Menuridae & Atrichiidae⁸ before — Until I get a ^complete skeleton of the latter I cannot determine its relationship to the former — taking them alone they each stand per se.

Tristram⁹ I admit to be a very fair guide for Sylviidae¹⁰ — if I remember right the chief [1 word illeg] in which I differ from him was his separating Reguloides from Phylloscopus¹¹, the position he assigned to Accentor¹² (I think) & my inability to understand what he means by Lusciniola¹³ as a distinct genus. I know [3]¹⁴ no way of separating Sylviidae from Turdidae¹⁵ & the method suggested by some writers of getting over the difficulty of breaking up what but for convenience' sake I should call the large group of Turdidae by intercalating 2 " families" Saxicolidae¹⁶ and Octoreindidae[?]¹⁷ seems to be eminently irrational.

I can well understand that these huge groups are of little importance to your undertaking, but the smaller groups they contain are otherwise.

So much for letter No. 1¹⁸. Now for No. 2¹⁹.

I think you overrate the difficulty of bringing together the work of Nearctic and Palaearctic²⁰ writers. which in my opinion is absolutely necessary in order that results may be duly compared. No doubt that to do this is some considerable labour, but I take it that with care the risk of error is not great. Such equivalents as Corythus[?] & Pinicola²¹, Lanius & [4] Collyrio²², Otocorys & Eremophilus²³ are pretty easily mastered by a little trouble & don't require any exercise of the judicial faculty the profession [one word crossed out] which by yourself you seem (needlessly I am sure) to mistrust. In most such cases it is almost at once evident that the species they contain are if not identical unquestionably representative. There are some which could not be decided so quickly, but these are I am persuaded not very many in number. If I am not mistaken you had Eremophilus as a genus peculiar to [word illegible and crossed out] America & Otocorys as one peculiar to Palaearctic — whereas one species is identical in both. This shows I think the necessity of reducing your nomenclature to a common standard. At the same time I agree with you as to the possibility of some confusion arising for[?] [5]²⁴ anyone consulting the authorities from whom you draw — & it would therefore be convenient to to²⁵ insert (as indeed you often have done) an "(= so & so)" or to mention the alteration in a footnote. While bringing both names into the Index will completely prevent any further mischief.

I should say that you may most justifiably look on Coracopsis²⁶ as a good genus — & I should call the ^{Madagascan (& perhaps Mascarene)} Love—bird Psittacula cana.

Flower²⁷ would no doubt look over your Mss[?]²⁸ on American Mammals (fossil). They are indeed wonderfully interesting.

As to orthographical²⁹ matters. I had [6] marked such as seemed to require it. & I should without any hesitation for my own part correct the misspelling of former authors. Such I believe ^{was the original 32} practice. Linnaeus or his printer had albiulla for the specific name of the Sea Eagle, but no one that I know of ever doubted the propriety of writing albicilla instead. Thus observing that the principle of correcting a mistake is defensible. If so I don't see that you can draw the line in the case of alteration of an initial letter — Ierax³⁰ e.g. which we know should be written Hierax — The case you cite of Kittacincla³¹ would follow this rule — [7]³² Names are to be Latin or in a Latinized form. & this fact was recognised fully long before Gould³³ established this genus. We also know that the Greek K becomes the Latin C. Whether we should write Cittocincla or Cittacincla is of less importance — I believe the former to be right — for in words compounded from the Greek the connecting vowel is nearly always o — just as in Latin ^compounds it is i — But returning to the case of an initial the difficulty ^{you mention} is at once got over by citing[?] both forms of spelling in the Index.

In your concluding remarks as to the so called "laws" of nomenclature not being laws at all because "there is no authoritative lawgiver & no person [8] to enforce obedience, without which "laws" cannot exist" — I am disposed to differ from you. We have all heard of a law of gravitation, yet one can't say one knows of any authority to enforce obedience to it, but I know that when I have had occasion to infringe it the result has been rather disastrous. & I suspect it is the same with others. Surely there are laws of grammar & of orthography —

Believe me | Yours very truly | Alfred Newton [signature]³⁴