Vul. iV. 

 1904 .. 



M'CikEGOR, 17/c Use 0/ Scicnli/ic Bird Names. ig 



generously with common names has greatly popularized their 

 study. But trivial names are inaccurate, and the wider the 

 territory over which they are used the more inaccurate they 

 become. For instance, the name Yellow-hammer in England 

 means a Bunting (Emberizd), in the United States it refers to 

 a Woodpecker (Colaptcs). Similar curiosities of nomenclature 

 occur with regard to Blackbird, Warbler, Flycatcher, and others. 

 At the same time there are hundreds of birds for which we have 

 no names other than the scientific ones. The latter we must 

 know and should use if we wish to be exact. The common name 

 may be useful over a limited area, but it becomes useless as this 

 area widens, as stated above, while the scientific name has a 

 value any and everywhere. For example, I see the name 

 Mistletoe-Bird in The Emu. Now this conveys to me no idea 

 whatever, but as I see it belongs to the genus Diccetim I am able 

 to locate it. Working with my native collectors I find that they 

 learn the scientific names much more readily than they would 

 English names. True, the natives here have names for many 

 birds, but these are seldom of more than generic value. 



I am well aware that a general narrative article cluttered with 

 scientific names makes a bad appearance and smacks of pedantry, 

 but this niay be avoided by giving the list of scientific names at 

 the end of the article, together with the trivial equivalents. In 

 a faunal list, however, the scientific names must always be 

 used, with or without the common ones as the author may 

 fancy. 



I am glad to see that The Emu prints names of species de- 

 dicated to persons without the " 's," a system, which is, I believe, 

 fast finding favour among American scientists. 



In conclusion, I can do no better than to quote the following 

 pertinent words from Mr. Robert Ridgway, Curator of Birds in 

 the Smithsonian Institution, and the highest authority in 

 America on systematic ornithology : — " No reasonable person 

 can make serious or well-founded objection to the use of ver- 

 nacular names in such publications [popular or semi-popular 

 bird books and journals], but since there are evidently some 

 who regard scientific names as wholly superfluous I desire to 

 present one good reason why the latter should always be given, 

 whether accompanied by the vernacular name or not. 



" So far as I am aware, no one has yet desired a better index- 

 to the literature of a particular species than a carefully pre- 

 pared ' synonymy,' by which I mean not only the various 

 synonyms themselves but also judiciously selected references 

 under each, arranged in chronological or some other methodical 

 sequence. For several years past the collation of references for 

 such a synonymy of the birds of North and Middle /\merica 

 has occupied a very considerable portion of my time, during 

 which there have been numerous occasions to deplore the absence 

 of the scientific name in connection with some note which 

 records a new fact of geographic distribution, habits, or nidifi- 



