COHRESPONDENGE. 295 



Rennie-like name," and " not sufficiently euphonious !" The same 

 sentence is likewise passed on Zigzag Wryneck, although, at the 

 same time, the epithet is pronounced to be " singularly appropriate." 

 This is really, I think, carrying " fastidiousness" a little too far ;-^ 

 fancy is all very well with ribbons and gauzes, but is rather out of 

 place in science. Brakehopper (first proposed by IMudie) is harsh 

 to the ear of the " sound reformer" (the r, perchance, grating too 

 roughly on the tympanum) ; and is forthwith pronounced " un^ 

 couth." Having thus exposed the first objection I take leave of it, 

 wishing the critic all success in his errantry after dulcet sounds. 



Leaving sound let us proceed to sense. " Fern Nightjar," we are 

 told, " is not sufficiently exclusive ;" and the epithets European and 

 Europeus are now pronounced to be less objectionable, as applied to 

 this species, than Fern and melolontha. What, then, becomes of 

 the former declaration of our writer? In vol. ii., p. 421, of The 

 Analyst, we are told — " The names proposed at p. 305 are exceU 

 lent, and especially that of the Caprimulgus Europeus, of Linnaeus. 

 Your correspondent proposes to name it the ' Fern Nightjar (Vocu 

 ferator melolontha)' This name is infinitely preferable to my 

 name, V. Europeus, which, besides being rather a vague and inex- 

 pressive specific name, is erroneous, as there is another European 

 species." Here are two contradictory assertions by the same writer 

 — which are we to believe ? Mr. N. Wood tells us that the '' Red- 

 necked Nightjar is known in Europe only as a straggler" (a third 

 species has since been discovered ; but how can he tell that it is not 

 plentiful in some parts ? A few years ago only one species of 

 Kinglet (Reguliis), of Wren (Anorthura), of Pie (Pica), of Dip- 

 per (Cinclus), &c., were known as European ; but now two or 

 more of each of these genera are described as common in Europe. 

 Audubon relates the same of many American species ; which shewd 

 what an uncertainty must ever attend local names. Mr. N. Wood 

 objects to Seedling as a generic name, on account of the seed-eating 

 character being more or less observable throughout the family 

 CFrifigillidceJ.* The same objection would exclude Flycatcher, 

 Diver, Sandpiper, Nightjar, &c. Your correspondent is right when 

 he prefers Whin Linnet to Garden Linnet, but I cannot agree with 

 him in thinking Common Gallinule admissible as applied to the 



• Ornithologists are not yet agreed on the type of this family : some 

 think the Finches, others the Linnets, others the Goldwings, others the 

 Grosbeaks ; but on mature consideration Mr. Bly th's proposal of the Cana- 

 ries (CanaricBj seem* the most correct ; — ^the Canary family (Canariadaj, 



