established Scientific Names. 141 



are but of little worth." This is the conclusion to which 

 every impartial investigator of the subject must inevitably 

 arrive. 



Mr. Strickland continues : " Hence the use of names is, 

 in fact, nothing more than a kind of memoria technica (arti- 

 ficial memory) ; by means of which, in writing or speaking, 

 the idea of an object is suggested, without the inconvenience 

 of a lengthened description." No one doubts this ; and it is 

 in order that specific names may answer this purpose the more 

 completely that naturalists usually aim at giving appropriate 

 appellations to natural objects. A correspondent of this Ma- 

 gazine well remarks, " Even the learned are often obliged to 

 turn to their lexicons, and after all, perhaps, to remain in 

 doubt, if not in ignorance, as to the signification in particular 

 instances. The task of committing to memory a long list of 

 hard names is much diminished, and becomes, indeed, a plea- 

 surable occupation, when their meaning is known, and the 

 propriety of their application apparent." (IV. 471.) Mr. 

 Dovaston, likewise, who declares himself decidedly averse to 

 change, adopts for the pied flycatcher the name bestowed on it 

 by Temminck, Muscicapa luctuosa, instead of that of Linnaeus, 

 M. atricapilla ; giving as his reason, that the former is more 

 appropriate. (V. 83.) It argues but a small developement of 

 causality to adopt a name because it has been given by a great 

 naturalist, and without enquiring into the applicability : the 

 phrenologist will refer this to misdirected veneration and imi- 

 tation. However Mr. Strickland may argue for mere sound, 

 he will never persuade reasoning beings to disregard the sense. 



Mr. Strickland continues : " It is remarkable that Linnaeus 

 was the first to distinguish each species of natural object by a 

 peculiar appellation. Before his time, naturalists were obliged 

 to resort to the singularly inconvenient method of repeating the 

 specific character every time that they wished to designate any 

 species." Linnaeus was the first to carry the binary system 

 throughout nature; but it is not correct to say, that he was the 

 first to adopt this method, or that naturalists were " obliged 

 to repeat the specific character every time they wished to 

 designate any species." Willughby (who, according to Swain- 

 son, <c was the most accomplished zoologist of this or any other 

 country ") has frequently given a generic and specific name 

 to birds, many of which have been falsely ascribed to Linnaeug 

 and other authors; as ^quila marina (common ospray), Falco 

 lapidarius (merlin, or stone falcon), &trix cinerea (gray owl), 

 Pica glandaria (common jay), ilierula aquatica (common 

 dipper), Perdix cinerea (common partridge), -Mbtacilla alba 

 (pied wagtail), ^nser Bassdnus (solan gannet), &c. Several 



