270 Propositions for rendering the Nomenclature of 



without any perceptible association of ideas. But mythological names may 

 sometimes be used as generic with the same propriety as technical ones, in 

 cases where a direct allusion can be traced between the narrated actions of a 

 personage and the observed habits or structure of an animal. Thus when the 

 name Progne is given to a Swallow, Clotho to a Spider, Hydra to a Polyp, 

 Athene to an Owl, Nestor to a grey-headed Parrot, &c, a pleasing and bene- 

 ficial connexion is established between classical literature and physical science. 

 e. Comparative names. — The objections which have been raised to words 

 of this class are not without foundation. The names, no less than the defini- 

 tions of objects, should, where practicable, be drawn from positive and self- 

 evident characters, and not from a comparison with other objects, which may 

 be less known to the reader than the one before him. Specific names expres- 

 sive of comparative size are also to be avoided, as they may be rendered in- 

 accurate by the after-discovery of additional species. The names Picoides, 

 Emberizoides, Pseudoluscinia, rubeculoides, maximus, minor, minimus, &c. are 

 examples of this objectionable practice. 



f. Generic names compounded from other ge?iera. — These are in some de- 

 gree open to the same imputation as comparative words ; but as they often 

 serve to express the position of a genus as intermediate to, or allied with, two 

 other genera, they may occasionally be used with advantage. Care must be 

 taken not to adopt such compound words as are of too great length, and not 

 to corrupt them in trying to render them shorter. The names Gallopavo, Te- 

 traogallus, Gypaetos, are examples of the appropriate use of compound words. 



g. Specific names derived from persons. — So long as these complimentary 

 designations are used with moderation, and are restricted to persons of emi- 

 nence as scientific zoologists, they may be employed with propriety in cases 

 where expressive or characteristic words are not to be found. But we fully 

 concur with those who censure the practice of naming species after persons 

 of no scientific reputation, as curiosity dealers (e. g. Caniveti, Boissoneauti), 

 Peruvian priestesses (Cora, Amazilia), or Hottentots (Klassi). 



h. Generic names derived from persons. — Words of this class have been 

 very extensively used in botany, and therefore it would have been well to 

 have excluded them wholly from zoology, for the sake of obtaining a memo- 

 ria technica by which the name of a genus would at once tell us to which of 

 the kingdoms of nature it belonged, Some few personal generic names have 

 however crept into zoology, as Cuvieria, Midleria, Rossia, Lessonia, &c, but 

 they are very rare in comparison with those of botany, and it is perhaps de- 

 sirable not to add to their number. 



i. Names of harsh and inelegant pronunciation.— These words are grating 

 to the ear, either from inelegance of form, as Huhua, Yuhina, Craxirex, Esch- 

 scholtzi, or from too great length, as chirostrongylostinus, Opetiorhynchus, 

 brachypodioides, Thecodontosaurus, not to mention the Enaliolimnosaurus 

 crocodilocephaloides of a German naturalist. It is needless to enlarge on the 

 advantage of consulting euphony in the construction of our language. As a 

 general rule it may be recommended to avoid introducing words of more than 

 five syllables. 



h. Ancient names of animals applied in a wrong sense. — It has been cus- 

 tomary, in numerous cases, to apply the names of animals found in classic 

 authors at random to exotic genera or species which were wholly unknown 

 to the ancients. The names Cebus, Callithrix, Spiza, Kitta, Struthus, are 

 examples. This practice ought by no means to be encouraged. The usual 



