142 



THE OSPREY. 



THE OSPREY. 



An Illustrated Magazine of Popular Ornithology. 

 Published Monthly, 

 By 

 THE OSPREY COMPANY. 



Edited by Theodore Gill and Paul Bartsch, in collabo- 

 ration with Robert Ridgway, LeonhardSiejneger, Frederic 

 A Lucas. Charles W Richmond, William Palmer and 

 Harry C. Oberholser of Washington, and WitmerStoue of 

 Philadelphia. 



Contributions of a relevant nature are respectfully soli- 

 cited, and should be addressed to The Osprey Company- 

 341-333 4% Street N. W.. Washington. L). C 



Subscription : In the United States. Canada and Mexico, 

 One Dollar a year, in advance. Single Copies, Ten Cents, 



Foreign Subscription: < Hie Dollar and Twenty-five Cents, 

 Postage paid to all countries in the Postal Union. 

 Advertising rates sent on request. 



Entered as second-class matter, by The Ospkey Com- 

 pany at the Washington. D. C, Post Office. 



SEPTEMBER, l'.Ol. 



Comments. 



WORK AND WORRY FOR THE CLASSICISTS. 



Some more apples of discord have been thrown 

 into the nomenclature ring! 



In the last number of the Osprey for August, 

 some names given to genera of birds by French 

 naturalists of a past generation were specified. 

 We commented on their nature and wondered 

 what our classical friends who will not tolerate 

 bad Latin or Greek would do. The trouble of 

 the classicists, it seems, will be still further in- 

 creased by modern sinners. An Italian natu- 

 ralist resident in La Plata, Dr. Florentino 

 Ameghino, who has been very active for a num- 

 ber of years in the description of the exceed- 

 ingly rich ancient mammalian and avian faunas 

 of Argentina, has very recently added a num- 

 ber of generic names of a fearful and wonderful 

 kind. He has apparently exhausted the re- 

 sources of ordinary Latin and Greek and, fear- 

 ful of giving names preoccupied in other divis- 

 ions of zoology, has invented a new and strange 

 system of nomenclature. Wishing to honor dis- 

 tinguished mammalogists and paleontologists, 

 but unable to give tenable terms based on their 

 family names alone, he has combined, in a gro- 



tesque whole, given names (sometimes first and 

 middle) with the family. Some examples of the 

 many results of this system of compounding 

 follow: 



Amilnedwardsia (after A. Milne-Edwards). 



AsmiThwoodwardia (A. Smith Woodward). 



EdvardoCOPEIA (Edward Cope). 



EdvardoTrouessartia (Edouard Trouessart). 



Caroloameghinia (Carlo Ameghino). 



Richardolydekkkkia (Richard Lydekker). 



GuiLiELMOSCOTTlA (William Scott). 



Olukiki.iiThomasia (Oldtield Thomas). 



Will the classicists accept these names? Will 

 they try to amend them? Or will they substi- 

 tute new names? Undoubtedly, there will be a 

 difference of opinion between representatives 

 of the school. We may be sure that Dr. Cabanis 

 and Count Salvadori, for example, would not 

 admit such monstrosities in Ornithology. But 

 how will others act? 



These names are cacophonous; others formed 

 against principles of good usage are euphoni- 

 ous. 



The very recent publication of a new name 

 for a genus of crustaceans reminds us of another 

 strange method of nomenclature originating 

 with an Englishman. 



In 1818, W. E. Leach gave names for genera 

 of Isopod crustaceans which have tried the inge- 

 nuity of etymologists, such as I'lUOLANA, OlEN- 

 CIRA. CONILKRA, ANILOCRA, NkROCILA and 

 Rocinkla. Agassiz did not recognize their 

 nature and must have been put to considerable 

 trouble in attempting to decipher them. (Leach 

 gave no assistance.) Two of them were desig- 

 nated by him as proper names ("A r oin. prop/:") 

 but Anilocra was derived from "ayiXeaX, im- 

 misericors [=unmerciful], oxpii, acer [^prom- 

 inence]" and Olencira from "i.ib/''. ulnus" 

 [=elbo\v or fore arm]: uu/tux, fascia [=-band 

 or girdle)". (There was no reason for such 

 meaning names but no matter.) Rocinela and 

 Nerocila were given up in despair, and his 

 failure indicated by six dots (" ")! 



Probably Leach had no idea of a Greek ety- 

 mology for any of the words in question. Any- 

 way, so good a historian of carcinology as the 

 Rev. Thomas R. R. Stebbing tells us that 

 "Leach is said to have framed" them "without 

 any meaning or derivation, but simply by plac- 

 ing in various positions the same four conso- 

 nants, and interspersing- vowels to suit the re- 

 quirements of his ear". 



The words, in fact, are anagrams of each 

 other. Evidently the basis of the words was 

 Caroline or Carolina. The possibilities of this 

 familiar name for anagrammatizing doubtless 



