established Scientific Names, 341 



Strickland's assertions in the Analyst ; for there, also, be it 

 known, he has " tried his hand" on the same subject. This 

 champion of anti-reform says, the changes in English names 

 " are certain never to be universally adopted." An accom- 

 plished naturalist of the present day remarks, that the past 

 is the mirror by which alone we can judge of the future. Let 

 us, then, see what prospects are held out by this mirror. At 

 the time when the fourteenth (the concluding) volume of the 

 General Zoology was published (1826), the Cinclus europae'us 

 of Stevens was universally called the water ouzel ; and this 

 was the appellation given it even in that work. Now, how- 

 ever, that erroneous name (the bird is not in the genus ouzel, 

 Merula) is entirely abandoned, Selby having introduced the 

 correct one, "European dipper." The genus ^nthus was for- 

 merly called tit-lark ; now, however, pipit is in general use. 

 Several excellent generic names, first proposed by Stevens, are 

 now in general use among naturalists : as examples may be 

 mentioned, thicknee, longbeak, lobefoot, hareld, &c. The 

 same may be said of the generic names in French ; on which 

 point Mr. Strickland, if sceptical, may inform himself by com- 

 paring the names used by Temminck, Vieillot,and other modern 

 authors, with those of BufFon and others of the old school. 



Mr. Strickland's paper in the Analyst, though of but half 

 the length of that in this Magazine (VIII. 56 — 40.), is, if 

 possible, as full of unfounded statements and unsupported 

 conclusions ; and I shall fully expose its errors in the Orni- 

 thological Guide, a little work I have in preparation. I, how- 

 ever, agree with Mr. Strickland on one point: the desirable- 

 ness of having a national nomenclature of science ; an object 

 which is also much recommended by Mudie in the preface to 

 the Feathered Tribes ; but, as this project is not very likely to 

 be soon brought about, we may do very well, in the mean 

 time, if a few rules are attended to : these I have briefly hinted 

 at in a former part (p. 144.); but, for the sake of clearness, I 

 will here reintroduce them. Every name must be tested: if 

 it will bear the test, no one has a right to alter it; but, if not, 

 it is the naturalist's duty to alter it. First, then, in regard to 

 the specific name : 1st, It must be consistent with truth ; 2dly, 

 It must not be founded on a generic character; 3dly, It must 

 not be taken from the name of a person # ; 4thly, It must not 



* Since writing the above, I have received Lansdown Guilding's opinion 

 on this point : it agrees entirely with my own : — " The nomina adulatoria, 

 or complimentary names, should not be extended to genera. In zoology, 

 the practice has been avoided to a certain extent, and might as well be 

 stopped altogether. In botany, the custom is so ancient and popular, that 

 it cannot be now discontinued." — [St. Vincent, May 1. 1830.] 



c c 3 



