420 ON THE NOMENCLATURE OF BIRDS. 



Hedge and Alpine Accenfors (Accentor modularis and A. Alpinus), &c. 

 It is evident enough that there is no essential objection to any of these 

 names ; still, however, it is probable that the generality of those who 

 read works on natural history, M'ould not adopt them. But who can 

 object to the name Whiteheaded Forktail (Elanus leucocephalus, mihi), or 

 to the beautiful and expressive name Kinglet ^Regulus) r 



Even supposing that the science of Ornithology did " not suffer by 

 this incorrect (and Mr. S. allows it to be incorrect) application of English 

 names," yet the difficulties thus placed, unnecessarily, in the way of the 

 student, would sufficiently warrant the change of the names. Anything 

 loose or unscientific is totally inadmissible in science. Science is surely 

 sufficiently abstruse in itself, without heaping upon it inaccuracies which 

 render it ten times more difficult ! But to proceed. 



Mr. S. observes that *' the first and most important requisite in scientific 

 terms is that they should be universally adopted, and hence the fathers 

 of Natural History have wisely employed the Latin language as the source 

 of their nomenclature, being generally understood by the learned among 

 all civilized nations.'' It is certainly very important that scientific terms 

 should be generally adopted, but before names become well known, the 

 newly proposed one might be followed by the old and Linnsean name. 

 It is essential to the improvement of Ornithological science that names 

 — Latin as well as English — ^be frequently altered ; for when a new sys- 

 tem is proposed — and there are now few who advocate the Linngean 

 system — new names must necessarily be introduced, and as new systems 

 are always propounded in works which it is essential for .every scientific 

 Naturalist to possess, there would be no fear of the names not being 

 sufficiently known. 



I by no means advocate — as Mr. S., seems to think — the substituting 

 English for Latin names, but merely wish to effect a reform in the for- 

 mer, which has long been most grievously wanted. To say that " the 

 science of Ornithology does not suffer by this incorrect application of 

 English names," is evidently erroneous, and requires no comment from 

 me. Mr. S. also speaks of "changes which are certain not to be uni- 

 versally adopted."* One or two instances will prove the groundlessness 

 of this assertion ; Cinclus aquaticus was formerly invariably called the 

 Water Ouzel, and the Pipits (Anthus) were termed Larks or Titlarks ; 

 now, however, the former receives the name of Dipper, and the latter of 

 Pipit, in Ornithological Works ; and rarely do we now meet with the old 

 names in the Natural History periodicals of the day. It is unnecessary 

 to multiply instances. 



The whole use of a system is, to facilitate the acquirement of Natural 

 History ; consequently this system should be as simple, and as free from 

 errors as possible^ in every part. This is a proposition which, I think, no 

 one will deny, and I consider that the slight alteration in English 

 nomenclature, proposed by me in a former number, greatly conduces to 

 this important end. If 1 wished the science to remain stationary, then 

 indeed I should say, leave the names as they are. 



Temminck and Stephens, as stated in a former paper, are amongst 

 those Naturalists who have paid most attention to this subject, and I 

 have no doubt but that the generally correct nomenclature of the " General 



* Happily for the cause of science, our Ornithologists are not of the same 

 opinion as Mr. S. Thus Mudie gives the name Hedge Warbler to the Pettichaps ; 

 the translator of Bechstein's Cage Birds uses the name Dunnock ; and Selby intro- 

 duces the following new names : — Longbeak (Macroraniphus) , Lobefoot {Lobipesj^ 

 Swiftfoot (Cursorius), Thicknee {(Edicnemus) , Hareld {Harelda), Garrot {Clangula), 

 &c. &r. &c. 



