194. 



Retrospect ivc C) iticism. 



greater importance in illustrating some of the difficulties of the science. 

 Many of the names given by Linnseus have been entirely laid aside, and 

 superseded by others, now considered correct, but which, in the lapse of a 

 few years, may be thought as inconsistent with the character of the animals 

 designated by them, as those of Linneeus are at the present day. It must 

 surely be admitted, that the study of ornithology, according to Linnaeus, 

 though, perhaps, not so minute as at present, was much more plain and 

 intelligible than that according to the more modern systems ; because many 

 are now inventing new names, which they consider more expressive of the 

 character and appearance of the animal than those given by their predeces- 

 sors. If, for example, I sit down to make out a list of birds, and come to 

 the common or pied v/agtail, I must either write the Linnaean name, Mota- 

 cilla alba, the one I have been always accustomed to, and by which I 

 know the bird best, or adopt the one given to it by Mr. llennie, Motacilla 

 lotor : next year another author may not be content even with Mr. 

 Rennie's name, and may term the bird differently. This system of chang- 

 ing names may be continued year after year, until the original appellation, 

 and perhaps the plainest of all, may be lost in the mazes of more modern 

 nomenclature. While on this subject, I must certainly object to Mr; 

 Rennie's changing the names so much from those in the original edition of 

 Montagu, but more particularly to his making use of provincial and vulgar 

 names, for those expressive of the habits or appearance of the birds. For 

 example, I would ask, in what consists the superiority of the term chick- 

 stone to the original one of stonechat ; cobb to that of black-backed gull ; 

 cobble to that of speckled diver ; hay-bird to that of willow wren ; boonk 

 to that of Httle bittern ; richel-bird to that of lesser tern ; skitty to that of 

 spotted rail ; whitwall to that of spotted woodpecker ; and many others I 

 could mention. Now, let any person (even one unacquainted with orni- 

 thology) compare these names, and pronounce which he should prefer, as 

 being plainer, or by which he would sooner expect to ascertain the birds, 

 and I feel confident that he must concede the superiority to the original. 

 Would any one who had not Mr. Rennie's book at hand know that the 

 cobb signified the black-backed gull, or that by the richel-bird he was to 

 understand the lesser tern ? 



We have now seen the changes made by Mr. Rennie in the English 

 names of many of the birds, whether for the better or otherwise I must 

 leave to the reader to determine. Let us turn our attention for a little to the 

 Latin names, and contemplate the alterations there. At the head of each 

 description of a bird Mr. Rennie gives the Latin name, included in a paren- 

 thesis, immediately after the English or provincial term ; and of course we 

 are to conclude that Mr. Rennie considers the Ljitin name thus selected 

 preferable to all which follow. For the reader's information, I shall point 

 out a few examples, and show the changes he has made : — 



Mr. Rennie's selection. 

 Soraat^ria spei tabilis oi Fleming. 

 Fuligula crist'kta oi Stephens. 

 Ciuerqu(?dula Cr^cca of Stephens. 

 Spathtilea clypeata of Fleming. 

 Tadorna /'ulpiiiiscr of Rat/. 

 OXAhvaia. nigra of Fleming. 

 Nt/rdca Mania of Fleming. 

 Clangula gldcialis of Fleimng. 

 Mareca fistul'iris of Slefhens. 

 Dnfila caudacuta of Leach. 

 Nyrhca ferlna of Fleming. 

 Oid&mia fusca of Fleming. 



Here, Sir, we have one genus of Linnaeus converted into ten, accord- 

 ing to the selection of Mr. Rennie. Which of these systems, I would 

 ask, is it likely a young student desirous of commencing ornithology 

 would wish to take as a standard. Snrelv not that in which he finds so 



