" Observations on Rules for Nomenclature." 203 



very name of Simla. In substituting Simla for Pithecus, 

 therefore, I was merely restoring the original nomenclature of 

 Linnaeus and Erxleben, which Geoffroy had thought proper 

 to abandon. This explanation will equally serve to acquit 

 me from Mr. Ogilby's third cardinal sin, that of " imposing 

 new names upon groups with the definition or formation of 

 which the proposer is in no way concerned, merely because," 

 &c, and I beg to say that I fully concur in the severity with 

 which he has animadverted upon the practice. 



I must however again protest against the unqualified cen- 

 sure which Mr. O. pours out upon the whole code of rules 

 which have been proposed; accusing them of being "arbitrary 

 and dogmatical," of " opposition to good sense, sound criti- 

 cism, and fixed principles," &c. That some indeed of these 

 propositions may be open to criticism is very probable ; but 

 inasmuch as they were the result of much study, conducted 

 with a # view of substituting justice, order, and common sense 

 for anarchy and chaos, it is 1 think unfair to infer from one or 

 two examples, that the whole are equally deserving of censure. 



With regard to the introduction of foreign or barbarous 

 names into science, I do not individually object to them, yet 

 as many naturalists do, I think it will be more prudent not to 

 employ them for new groups In future. But Mr. O. will see 

 (vol. i. n. s. p. 175, rule 10), that this rule is not made retro- 

 spective, and that an exception is introduced in favour of spe- 

 cies called by their native names. 



Mr. O. says that euphony and propriety of application are 

 principles which he finds no where clearly developed In any 

 of the codes of nomenclature lately published. Now on turn- 

 ing to vol. i. n. s. p. 175, he will find that euphony is provided 

 for by rule 13, and that rules 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, and 21, 

 are all intended to ensure propriety of application. So that 

 the phrase " no where clearly developed In any of the codes" 

 is another instance of the rather free use of superlatives in 

 which Mr. O. has indulged. 



After these strictures on Mr. Ogilby's paper, I am happy, in 

 conclusion, to express my entire concurrence in his censures 

 of those persons who attempt the reformation of vernacular 

 names. On this subject I need not enlarge, having already 

 explained my views in this Magazine, vol. i. N. s. p. 130, and 

 Analyst, vol. ii. p. 317. I cannot however withold the ex- 

 pression of my regret that Mr. Swainson, after deprecating, in 

 1836, the extension of English names to foreign ornithology, 

 should, in 1837, have committed this very error, by introducing 

 this unscientific and worse than useless English nomenclature 

 into his Birds of Western Africa. 



