WCP4041

[1]

The Dell, Grays, Essex

March 29th. 1875

Dear Newton¹

I send you off today the Ethiopian & Neotrop.[ical] Mss. as promised. I have just looked hastily at most of your notes. They will be most valuable to me, and will receive careful attention when I revise the Mss. Especially I value your opinion as to what ^genera should be separated to form families & what families united.

To you who have studied birds all your life & have the literature by heart, it must seem stupid of me to use different names for the same genus. Please therefore [2] remember that my study of birds began with my Eastern journey,— & that the Birds of Europe & N. America are mostly as strange to me as the birds of Africa. Working from one set of books for the Nearctic & another set for the Palearctic region, — & again another for the Neotropical, I took the genera as I found them named differently. I should have endeavoured to introduce some uniformity,— but I fear I must leave much confusions still... For example for Neot[ropical] birds I must follow Sclater² & Saloin[?]. In Nearctic I must follow Baird³ & Cases[?]. When they use different names for [3] their respective portions of the genus ^same genus,— &, what more frequently occurs, one uses one name for his portion, the other divides his portion into 2-3 genera ^{with 2-3 names, sometimes} all ^different has can I possibly to introduce harmony between these? In attempting to do so I should probably put both wrong,— & puzzle every reader who wanted to compare my work with the authorities, for either regions... What am I to do in such cases? Till then in some good general list of genera & species I can only follow the piecemeal lists. I defy any one to harmonize the different American & English lists of American birds without going into the whole literature, synonymously[?] & specimens!

[4] My plan is to follow the special authority, when there is one, in each region. In the general part, (3rd) to follow the only general authority that exists. Grays Hand List, with such corrections of arrangement as I can get at,- except in these families & genera wholly confused to one Region, where I can of course follow the specialist. It’s a great pity Sclater & Labirn[?] do not include the North American birds in their work.

Unfortunately when a (reputed) good ornithologist does work not a group, it is not always much left,— for surely Finsch’s⁴ Parrot arrangement is most crude & unsatisfactory. Is Coracopsis⁵ a good genus,— & which is the [5] genus of the Mascarene⁶ — Psittacula⁷ (of Finsch).

Have you a separate copy of the Paper on "Les Mancos de Socorro"[?] for Boston Journal? If so will you lend it [to] me. I have always more than I can do when I go to Zool.[ogical] Lib.[rary].

Can you tell me the locality where the Eocene Lemur⁸ was found also if a name has been given it? Flower promised to send a note about it to "Nature" but has not done so.

I am at work now at the Extinct animals. The American [6] Mammals are wonderfully interesting. Do you think Flower would look over my Mss. of this part, & save me from any great blunders?

Is there any recent good popular accounts of extinct animals & their relations in different countries? I have seen none, & if so I think any chapters in the subject will supply a want.

I send you the whole Mss. of the two regions— All will have a concluding part showing general relations of the region [7] to others as indicated by Paleontology.

All through the 3^rd part there is also much to be added about the extinct forms.

Yours very truly | Alfred R. Wallace [signature]

P.S. I note your numerous corrections of Orthography. They shall be attended to, except in a few cases,— as, one principle. I object to altering the initial letter of a work name, on altering it so as to quite alter the pronunciation: Kittacuicla[?] for example. Even in the change doctors disagree. You say Aittocuicla, — Agassis, followed by Saboni Cettaetuicla — Sclater R.L.S. Kittacuicla.

[8] The newest of the improvement being, that in any case you never know beforehand whether you have to look in the judge of a book — K or C. — Therefore often have to look in both. [one word illegible] this loss of time & confusion inevitably caused by the change compensated by any decided advantage in the use of the corrected name? [one word illegible] that such reader must not be applied retrospectively to introduce confusion. They are not "laws" as often called,— for there is no authoritative lawgiver & no power to enforce obedience, without which "laws" cannot exist.

A.R.W. [signature]