163 



not attended to, it has not been intentional on the part of the nominator, but has 

 arisen from inability, or carelessness, or from a wish to adopt a similarity of ter- 

 mination. Connected with this subject is the desirableness of a similarity of ter- 

 mination* in the names of the species of a genus, agreeing also, if possible, with 

 the termination of the generic name itself; but I must decline giving my opinion 

 whether this be feasible or not in all cases. As one great means towards effecting 

 a classical uniformity of nomenclature, it appears to me desirable that generic 

 names should be of Greek, and specific names of Latin, oingin ; this distinction 

 has been already obscurely and insufficiently acted upon, as will appear by refer- 

 ence to any general catalogue, but so inadequately and imperfectly as to form only 

 exceptions to the rule. If the rule of grammatical propriety be not attended to in 

 the first instance, any succeeding writer whose ear may be offended by the impro- 

 per expression will feel called upon to alter the erroneous name ; and this, in very 

 many cases, would cause so great an alteration in the form of the word as to add to 

 the already too numerous list of synonyms. As an example, the first which occurs 

 to me, and, therefore, by no means so strong a one as might be adduced, I will 

 take the generic name of the common Brown Owl, Aluco auctorum. Now this 

 word does not occur in the Latin language, but doubtless Alucus was intended, 

 which may be found in all dictionaries (whether from the habits of the bird it has 

 anything to do with " lucus a non lucendo" is more than I can say) : of this I was 

 not aware when I first published my Guide to an Arrangement of British Birds, 

 but as soon as I discovered the error I corrected it in the Supplement. The 

 English names of our birds remain last to be considered, but for the present I 

 must leave the subject : when I resume it, T will give a synoptical table of British 

 ornithology, formed according to the rules laid down above, as the basis of a second 

 edition of the Guide, which I am now preparing. 



( To be continued). 



ON THE CHELIFER. 



It has been generally admitted that the Chelifer, a species of small articulated 

 octopod animal, does not spin a filament like their congener, the Spider. Mr. 

 Lucas has, however, established that the Chelifers do possess the faculty of secret- 

 ing a given number of threads, but to a smaller extent than those of the Spider, 

 and under different circumstances of locality ; which, doubtless, led to the errone- 

 ous opinion hitherto entertained by Naturalists on this subject. 



* Above all things, there should be no difference of gender in the several species of a 

 genus. 



y2 



