Rules for Rendering the Nomenclature of Zoohgrj Uniform. 361 



they occur; others (e. g. Swaiuson), will only tolerate them when they 

 apply exdmivdy, as Lepus hibernicus, Troglodytes europaus, etc. We 

 are by no means disposed to go to this length. It is not the less true 

 that the Eirundo javanica is a Javanese bird, even though it may occur 

 in other countries also, and though other species of Hinindo may occur 

 in Java. The utmost that can be urged against such words is, that 

 they do not tell the iL-hole truth. However, as so many authors object 

 to this class of names, it is better to avoid giving them, except when 

 there is reason to believe that the species is chiefly confined to the 

 country whose name it bears. 



h. Barbarous names.— Some authors protest strongly against the in- 

 troduction of exotic words into our Latin nomenclature ; others defend 

 the practice with equal warmth. We may remark, first, that the 

 practice is not contrary to classical usage, for the Greeks and Romans 

 did occasionally, though with reluctance, introduce barbarous words 

 in a modified form into their respective languages. Secondly, the 

 preservation of the trivial names which animals bear in their native 

 countries is often of great use to the traveler in aiding him to discover 

 and identify species. We do not, therefore, consider, if such words 

 have a Latin termination given to them, that the occasional and judi- 

 cious use of them as scientific terms can be justly objected to. 



c. Technical names.— AW words expressive of trades and professions 

 have been by some writers excluded from zoology, but without suffi- 

 cient reason. Words of this class, when carefully cKosen, often express 

 the pecuhar characters and habits of animals in a metaphorical man- 

 ner, which is highly elegant. We may cite the generic terms Arvi- 

 cola, Lanius, Pastor, Tyrannus, Regidus, Mimus, Ploceus, etc., as favor- 

 able examples of this class of names. 



d. Mythological or historical noHies.— When these have no perceptible 

 reference or allusion to the characters of the object on which they are 

 conferred, they may be properly regarded as unmeaning and in bad 

 taste. Thus, the generic names Lesbia, Leilus, Remus, Corydon, Padphxe, 

 have been applied to a humming-bird, a butterfly, a beetle, a parrot, 

 and a crab, respectively, without any perceptible association of ideas. 

 But mythological names may sometimes be used as generic, with the 

 same propriety as technical ones, in cases where a direct allusion can 

 be traced between the narrated actions of a personage and the observed 

 habits or structure of an animal. Thus, when the name Progne is 

 given to a swallow, Clotho to a spider. Hydra i_to a polyp, Athene to an 

 owl, Kest07' to a grey-headed parrot, etc., a pleasing and beneficial con- 

 nexion is established between classical literature and physical science. 



e. Comparative names. — The objections which have been raised to 



