419 



ON THE NOMENCLATURE OF BIRDS.* 



I WAS by no means surprised to perceive in the last number of the 

 Analyst, that my proposed alteration (though a very slight one) in the 

 English nomenclature of birds, was considered objectionable by your 

 correspondent. I am well acquainted with the views of Mr. Strickland 

 on this subject from his paper in the Magazine of Natural History, 

 which, in my opinion, does not contain one sound argument in favor of 

 his statements. On this occasion I shall confine my remarks to his 

 paper in the Analyst. 



Mr. Strickland says, at p. 317, that the English names of birds ** are 

 consecrated by usage as much as any other part of the English language, f 

 and consequently when we speak of an Hedge Sparrow we are much 

 more likely to be understood than if we call it an Hedge Dunnock, 

 though I willingly admit that it is unscientific to give the same 

 generic name to an accentor and a passer." I am sorry that Mr. S. 

 belongs to that unimproving class who consider that " whatever is, is 

 right." If every one were of the same opinion, the world would never 

 advance. As to the name Hedge Sparrow being better known than 

 Hedge Dunnock (although the bird goes by the latter name in many 

 parts of England), that is possible enough ; but it is the business of the 

 scientific Naturalist to reform these abuses, and to substitute proper 

 names for those which are erroneous and unscientific. Why Natural 

 History should be doomed to possess so loose and unscientific a nomen- 

 clature, while that of all other sciences is so exact and precise, I am 

 really at a loss to determine. I remember that when I first entered on 

 the study of Ornithology, I actually supposed the " Bull Finch" to be 

 a true Finch ;l and is this to be wondered at? I had heard that CA'-ery 

 bird had a generic and a specific name, and, therefore, it was quite 

 natural to conclude that the generic name indicated the genus to which 

 the species belonged ; how grievously I was mistaken, the works of any 

 modern Ornithologist will amply testify. 



The number of naturalists (field naturalists especially) is now so 

 great, that were the proper English names given in all standard orni- 

 thological works, the multitude would insensibly follow in the steps of 

 the professor. For the amateur naturalist would use in common con- 

 versation such names as they had been accustomed to meet with in 

 books. Thus the name Gallinuh has now almost wholly superseded the 

 absurd name "Water Hen.'* The naturalist should direct the multi- 

 tude, and not the multitude the naturalist. 



If Mr. S. objects to my name Hedge Dunnock, what will he say to 

 that used by Selby, in his masterly work the Illustrations of British Or- 

 nithology ; in both first and second editions that excellent naturalist 

 calls this bird the Hedge Accentor. Now, although there is no scientific 

 error in this name, yet it is, in my opinion, too pedantic for common 

 use. Selby seems rather partial to using latin names in English ; thus he 

 has, the Egyptian Neophron (Neophron percnopterus) , the Swallow-tailed 

 Elanus (Elanus furcatus) the Goldcrested Regulus (Regulus auricapillus) , the 



* In answer to Hugh E. Strickland, Esq. Vol. II. p. 317. 



-f* A gradual change is constantly effecting in every part of the English language. 

 X This is a general opinion amongst the vulgar. See Johnson's Diet, for a 

 definition of ** finch." 



July, 1835. — VOL. ii. no. xir. 3 i 



