130 Inexpediency of altering established Terms, 



many of the generic names to which he objects. Thus Tina- 

 mus, Catarrhactes, Dendrocolaptes, &c, having once become 

 established, may, in my opinion, be advantageously retained, 

 though they are not to be imitated in future. 



As a proof that a name may answer the purpose of sug- 

 gesting an object to the mind, even when its meaning implies 

 something actually false and erroneous, I may instance the 

 names Caprimulgus and Paradisea apoda. The mention of 

 these names immediately suggests the idea of certain birds to 

 the ornithologist ; but there are surely none so ignorant as to 

 be led by the etymology of these terms into a belief that the one 

 sucks goats, and that the other has no feet. All that is now 

 implied by the term Caprimulgus is, that "these are the birds 

 once accused of sucking goats;" and by apoda, that "this is 

 the bird anciently supposed to be destitute of feet, and which 

 to this day is so rarely obtained with those organs perfect." 

 Now, though these facts are of no great importance, they are 

 at least amusing and harmless associations connected with 

 the birds in question^ Therefore, names whose very meaning 

 is erroneous do not necessarily mislead: hence the term 

 Caprimulgus, which has been established for 2000 years, 

 ought, and I trust will, triumph over its ephemeral rivals 

 Nyctichelidon, Vociferator, and Phalaenivora. 



Yet, in general, it cannot be denied that, in the rare cases 

 when the derivation of a name, whether generic or specific, is 

 likely to propagate a really false opinion, such a name should 

 be erased. When such changes are made, some plan should 

 be adopted to consult the opinions of foreign as well as 

 English naturalists, and to insure a universal adoption 

 throughout the whole scientific world. 



In what has been said above I have had in view only the 

 Latin and Graeco-Latin names for natural objects. These, 

 being recognised by naturalists of all nations, form the only 

 legitimate language of science. English names, therefore, 

 are not wanted in scientific discourse ; for, when one name for 

 a thing is sufficient, two are superfluous. There are, how- 

 ever, certain persons who find the Latin names too learned for 

 them, and will not be satisfied without English names for 

 genera and species. Not being able to make the vernacular 

 names in use among our peasantry square with their ideas of 

 systematic nomenclature, they set to work to coin terms out 

 of their mother-tongue ; and thus we are beset with a host of 

 such names as kinglet, treeling, mufHin, &c. Such puerili- 

 ties may be very well for country bird-stuffers, and for idle 

 boys, who, instead of going to school, spend their time in 

 birdnesting, and call themselves " field-naturalists ;" but they 



