established Scientific Names. 143 



believe, found only in Britain ; but then other species in the 

 same genus are found in that island ; and thus the epithets 

 " British," and " britannicus," to which it would otherwise be 

 entitled, are not admissible. Fourthly, naming after persons is 

 so very absurd and unscientific, that it cannot be too strongly 

 condemned. Several naturalists have spoken of it as so per- 

 nicious a system deserves ; and the only end which can be 

 sought by this unscientific mode must be to gratify a paltry 

 vanity, or to aim at that celebrity which could not be obtained 

 by fair means. 



If I am right in considering these specific names to be ob- 

 jectionable, as regarding the progress of the student, and, 

 consequently, of science, it is plainly not only allowable, but 

 desirable and necessary, tnat they should be altered where- 

 ever and whenever they occur. And on this ground it is 

 that I have altered the name of the hedge coaihood (vulgarly, 

 alp, bullfinch, tonihoop, &c.^, fromPyrrhula vulgaris, to Pyr- 

 rhula modularis. (See The Analyst, Nos. xi. and xiii.) The 

 epithet vulgaris does not answer to Wilson's excellent defi- 

 nition of a specific name, which modularis does. I am not 

 aware of any other species, of coaihood to which this epithet 

 would apply; and, even if there is, still it will remain equally 

 applicable to the present species, which vulgaris will not. The 

 Pyrrhula enucleator of Temminck obviously does not belong 

 to the genus coaihood (Pyrrhula) : the name proposed (VII. 

 594.) may therefore be adopted ; namely, pine thickbill (Den- 

 sirostra enucleator). It is the durbec de& pins of the French. 

 I think it highly probable that, on close investigation, it will 

 be found that there is but one known species of coaihood, 

 though Linnaean authors have reckoned many. 



Several writers (and among them lam sorry to find Mr. West- 

 wood, who is worthy of a better cause) have condemned change 

 altogether : but these worthy scribes, by grasping at too much, 

 lose all. Naturalists who have considered the subject impar- 

 tially, seeing the utter absurdity of such a position without 

 investigating the question deeply, think they may disregard it 

 altogether, and thus make unwarrantable alterations ; where- 

 as, had the anti-reformers been more reasonable in their de- 

 mands, the probability is, that their wishes would have been 

 gratified. Some change will take place; and, therefore, if, in- 

 stead of exposing their ignorance and their folly by attempting 

 to stop what no power on earth can stop, Mr. Strickland and 

 Co. were to exert themselves to modify and direct this neces- 

 sary change, they would be employing their time usefully, and 

 would gain their point. Thus, if naturalists were to unite their 

 voices with Wilson's in saying, m Specific names must in all 



