290 CORRESPONDENCE. 



that which has been used for another, ought to be avoided ; because 

 it may, possibly, lead to confusion. Besides this, I really think that 

 some reason ought to be assigned for such radical changes of no- 

 menclature as S. D. W. proposes. I want to know the grounds 

 upon which my assent is required to such changes. Nothing can 

 be more desirable than to have a general and universally-acknow- 

 ledged nomenclature ; but I want some substantial reason assigned 

 for the adoption of such names as Whitehreasted Nightling, Sparrow 

 Nightling, &c., and for such uncouth designations as Heath Madge, 

 and Longeared Madge, before I consent to use them. 



Leaving the Owl, we will proceed to other birds, without any 

 regard to classification. I find, in the list. White Kite, Fern Night- 

 jar, Minnow Kingfisher, Rivulet Dipper, and a variety of other 

 names of the same kind, and which, I think, have a direct tendency 

 to mislead and to confuse the student. If I see the names Kite, 

 Nightjar, Kingfisher, and Dipper, I clearly understand what is 

 meant ; but when I see the name of White Kite, I am led to sup- 

 pose that there must be another Kite, of some other colour. The 

 same, also, of the others — Minnow Kingfisher would lead me to 

 expect that there were other British Kingfishers, who preyed on 

 other fish, and were distinguished by the name of the fish on which 

 they fed ; and I should be further led to imagine that the Minnow 

 Kingfisher fed upon minnows, and upon no other Jish, The like, 

 again, of the Dipper — by the distinctive epithet Rivulet, attached to 

 it by S. D. W., I am naturally led to suppose that there are other 

 British Dippers ; and I should expect to find them named, in con- 

 tradistinction to S. D. W.'s, River Dipper, Lake Dipper, or Sea 

 Dipper, as the case might be. 



These remarks, I hope, S. D. W. will take in good part, as they 



are meant; anxiety for the establishment of an undisputed and 



Jijced nomenclature has suggested them : for nothing would give me 



greater pleasure than to see such a nomenclature adopted, not only 



in ornithology, but also in every department of natural science. 



Perhaps, you will allow me to say one word, in conclusion, in 

 further elucidation of the subject, respecting the nomenclature of 

 British Butterflies. The genus Melitsea and Argynnis, are both called 

 Fritillaries. Why ? If the one genus be chequered, the other cer- 

 tainly is not — it is spotted : and besides, I would have names appro- 

 priated to them that would better designate their habits ; and their 

 habits are exceedingly dissimilar. Again, with respect to the Blue 

 Butterflies — I can understand the common blue, the pale blue, the 

 azure blue, the silver. studded blue, &c. ; here I can distinctly un- 

 derstand the distinctive differences meant to be noted : but when I 

 find other blues denominated Arguses, I am at fault, for the one 

 class is quite as much eyed as the other. 



These are the ideas which spontaneously sprung up in my mind, 

 in reading S. D. W.'s paper. I submit them to his consideration, 

 applauding his object, and wishing him abundant success. 



December, 1835. CARLO CYFFIN. 



