CORRESPONDENCE. 289 



To the Editor of The Analyst. 

 Sir, 



In your last number, page 26, are some observations on the im- 

 provement of ornithological nomenclature, by S. D. W., and upon 

 which I would beg to remark for a few moments. 



If I understand your correspondent aright, his remarks have as 

 much reference to the popular as to the scientific names, and it is to 

 the former that I will confine my observations. I am one of the 

 unlearned, and am, therefore, desirous that Natural History should 

 be " made easy to the meanest capacity." I see no good reason 

 whatever why natural science is to be circumscribed by learned 

 walls, over which the vulgar cannot peep, stretch themselves upon 

 tip-toe as much as they please : I can see no good reason why the 

 name Brimstoiie Butterfly will not answer every general purpose 

 fully as well as Gonepteryx rkamni. It is to be presumed that 

 those who are latinists also understand English; and, therefore, 

 when I describe an object by a name which every Englishman can 

 understand, and which will convey to his mind a clear idea of the 

 object to which I allude, I run no risk of misleading the scholar ; 

 for I presume his knowledge of Latin has not deprived him of his 

 knowledge of English. 



Frequent changes in the nomenclature of natural productions is 

 highly to be deprecated. Scientific names are hard to be acquired 

 by the unlearned ; and if this be an obstacle in his way in running 

 the race of science, how vastly are his difficulties enhanced by the 

 endless changes which are now so fashionable. It would almost 

 appear that the object of science, in the present day, was to attend 

 wholly to names, they are so everlastingly changing ; and thus the 

 student — particularly the unlearned student — is for ever groping his 

 dark and dubious way, always doubtful of the security of his foot- 

 ing, and frequently compelled to wwlearn to day what he learnt yes- 

 terday. 



I would offer my remarks (very unworthy, perhaps, they may be) 

 ill the spirit of kindness and good-will — in the spirit of a naturalist. 

 I would, then, ask S. D. W., why give so many names to the Owl 

 family ? — (Strigida?). In his list he gives us eleven Owls, with 

 the word Owl attached to but one of them. Why not let the term 

 Owl be the English family name, and attach some distinctive name 

 to each separate species } This involves another difficulty — one of 

 his Owls he calls a Sno^^jflake r now, inasmuch as there is already a 

 Snowfleck generally (perhaps universally) known by that name— - 

 though S. D. W. has changed the name to Snowy Longspur — is 

 there not a great chance of the novice being misled by the same 

 name, or names, so nearly similar, being attached to birds so very 

 dissimilar ? It will probably be answered, that, as the term Snow- 

 fleck is now discarded, the objection will not hold good : true, it 

 will not hold good, abstractedly considered ; but as it has been in 

 such general use, and for such a long period, it strikes me very for- 

 cibly that the great similarity in the name now used for one bird> to 



January, 1836. — VOL. III., NO. xiv. u 



