C. J. Sundevall on the Wings of Birds. 391 



The history of this knowledge is not very extended. It 

 includes in the first place the terminology adopted by Linnaeus, 

 which is to be found systematically set forth in 1758 in the 

 ' Systema Naturae/ ed. x. p. 79, and still more in detail in 

 1766 in ed. xii. pp. 110-111 '^. 



This terminology is extended and improved by Illiger in 

 his well-known ' Terminologie/ published in 1798 (translated 

 into Swedish by Marklin), and reproduced in the same words 

 in his ' Prodromus Systematis Mammalium et Avium ' 

 (1811) . There was here no question of anything but a termi- 

 nology, and therefore scarcely anything was added serving 

 essentially to advance the knowledge of the structure of the 

 wing ; merely a heap of new names adopted : — Pteromata, 

 Ptila, Campterium, &c. Illiger was not sparing of new terms, 

 and adopted without hesitation, besides the necessary ones 

 which ought always to be retained, a great number which 

 are not necessary, and which I must therefore regard as 

 superfluous. Of those which relate to the wings I shall 

 speak hereafter f. 



Some subsequent attempts do not properly deal with the 

 structure of the wing in its entirety. This applies to Isidore 

 Geoffrey St. -Hilaire^s recently published memoir in his ^Essais 

 deZoologiegenerale^ (Paris, 1841), in which the terms obtuse 

 and aigile (obtuse and acute), with the superadded more 

 exact qualifications sur and sub, are adopted to indicate that 



* " Alge .... tectae peunis, demura Tectricibus primis secundisque, pos- 

 ti^e ciliatae remiffibus, &c. Remigcs primores x. : 1-4 Digiti, 5-10 Meta- 

 carpi ; Secimdan'ilO-20 s. 28 Cubiti ; nulli vero Bracliii ; at Alula spuria 

 pennis 3 s. 5 PoUici insidet." It is impossible that sucli a clear and com- 

 plete description could be given in a briefer form. 



t Of course it is not my intention to censure the terminology of this 

 distinguished man, drawn up as it is in a truly classical spirit; but we 

 should, as far as possible, avoid making terminology into a special study, 

 which burdens the memory, and therefore we should follow the prevalent 

 example of the general usages of language, and adopt termini technici 

 only for parts or ideas w^hich are never or rarely employed in diagnosis, 

 and not for those in the naming of which we can avail ourselves of the 

 ordinary mathematical terms (which must of course be used in their 

 pi'oper signification) or of other generally kno^\'n and accepted terms (e.g. 

 margu (il<s, instead of campferiiun, Illig.). 



2f2 



