established Terms in Natural History. 37 



than in M. N. H., vii. 593., where an anonymous corre- 

 spondent (S. D. W.) has had the temerity to alter the long- 

 established appellations, both generic, specific, and verna- 

 cular, of the common bullfinch; and that, too, on grounds 

 the most vague and unsatisfactory. In protesting against such 

 " wholesale changes " as this, I am far from discarding 

 S. D. W.'s proposal, merely u because it is new ; " and will, 

 therefore, follow his advice, and endeavour to "state my 

 reasons " for so doing. 



In any systematic work on natural history,, the parts which 

 are essential to the elucidation of each species are, the specific 

 name, specific character, and the description ; to each of which 

 a distinct object is assigned. The description of a species 

 ought to contain every character and circumstance belonging 

 to it, except those which apply to the whole genus. All the 

 facts that appertain to a species are thus formed into a fund, 

 which we may apply to any purpose we have in view. The 

 specific character enables us to recognise any species which 

 we may meet with for the first lime, or to compare it with 

 others of the same genus; and, to form this character, we 

 select from the description certain characteristics, which, 

 singly or combined, belong to that species alone. Lastly, 

 the object of the specific name is precisely the same as that of 

 all names whatever; which have been defined to be, •* arbi- 

 trary signs adopted to represent real things or conceptions." 

 Hence, the use of names is, in fact, nothing more than a kind 

 of memoria technica [artificial memory]: by means of which, 

 in writing or speaking, the idea of an object is suggested, 

 without the inconvenience of a lengthened description. The 

 advantages of this principle are found to be so great, that 

 mankind have, in all ages, applied it to every subject on 

 which they have had occasion to discourse, as well as to 

 every individual of their own species. It is remarkable, how- 

 ever, that Linnaeus was the first to distinguish each species of 

 natural object by a peculiar appellation. Before his time, 

 naturalists were obliged to resort to the singularly incon- 

 venient method of repeating the specific character every time 

 that they wished to designate any species. Thus, in the time 

 of Ray, our Lanius Cbllurio, for instance, was known as the 

 " Lanius minor jufus ;" and Lanius rufus of Temminck was 

 designated " Lftnius minor cinerascens, cum macula in scapulis 

 alba." [See the inconvenience of this mode humorously 

 shown, in I. 134, 135., by Miss Kent.] The specific name 

 was introduced as a substitute and representative of the spe- 

 cific character in common discourse; that character itself being 

 preserved, for purposes of reference, in systematic works. 



d a 



