LETTER TO THE EDITOR. Sif 



as I am well aware that every objection that either Dr. Milligan 

 or any other person has opposed or can oppose to this science, 

 is easily refuted even by the merest tyro in phrenology. 



Leaving this paper of C. R. let us glance at the following no- 

 tice of the first number of the ** Analyst," in the " Brighton 

 Herald": — "The paper of Dr. Milligan on phrenology is very 

 interesting, and we shall be curious to know what answer the 

 phrenologists will give; for it seems calculated to make sad 

 havoc in their science" If the editor of the " Brighton Herald" 

 finds- the paper of Dr. Milligan so interesting, I would advise 

 him to turn over the leaves of that excellent periodical the 

 " Phrenological Journal," if he has not already done so, for there 

 he will find papers against Phrenology, as interesting as this of 

 Dr. Milligan ; and will also find them ably refuted. The editor 

 of the " Brighton Herald" says, " He shall be curious to know 

 what answer the phrenologists will give." His curiosity is now 

 satisfied, if it has not been before, by an humble but ardent 

 follower of the science, whose sole aim in giving this paper to the 

 world is that those readers of the *' Analyst," who do not see the 

 " Phrenological Journal," or the works of Gall, Spurzheim, and 

 Combe, may not be led away by this article of C. R. I will 

 remark in conclusion, in order that the feelings of your corres- 

 pondent may not be wounded by this refutation of his " in- 

 dubitable facts," that a desire to point out his misconception of 

 the meaning of the phrenologists, alone induced me to address 

 this communication to your readers. 



NEVILLE WOOD. 



Foston Hall, Derbyshire, May, 1835. 



To the Editor of the Analyst, 



Sir, 



In your last No. is a paper on the " Nomenclature of Birds," by 

 Mr. Neville Wood, on which I am desirous of offering a few 

 remarks. I think Mr. W.'s plan of altering many of the English 

 names of our common birds, objectionable, because they more 

 properly form part of our vernacular tongue than of the language 

 of Science. They are consecrated by usage as much as any other 

 part of the English language, and consequently when we speak of 

 an hedge 5joarrow we are much more likely to be understood than if 

 we called it an hedge dunnock, though I willingly admit that it ig 

 unscientific to give the same generic name to an Accentor and a 

 Passer. But the truth is, that the science of ornithology does not 

 suffer by this incorrect application of English names, because those 



