145



CORRESPONDENCE.



BOOK ON ORNAMENTAL WATERFOWL-


Sir,—A short time ago one of our members wrote to me asking for a

book on Ornamental Waterfowl. I replied referring him to Mr. Finn’s

articles in the “ Feathered World.” It may, however, be of interest to our

members generally to know that the articles by Mr. Finn are reprinted,

and may be had in book form, under the title “F'ancy Waterfowl.”


J. Lewis Bonhote.



WHAT’S IN A NAME?


Sir, — I have read with very great interest Mr. R. Phillipps’ notes in

the “ Avicultural Magazine” (February, p. 77) on a great favourite of mine,

the Black-headed Sibia (Malarias capistrata). Having observed the species in

a wild state—it is almost the most conspicuous bird at Darjeeling — I can

bear witness to the accuracy of his observations. But I have here to com¬

plain of his objections to its name, and to those of other birds which have

not descriptive English appellations. Now I yield to nobody in my admira¬

tion for our noble language, the more so as I am by early training a

classical man, although I have always been a bird-lover, and of late years a

professional naturalist.


Thus I do not like the pseudo-classical barbarisms with which

scientific ornithological literature is loaded, although one must use them

for the sake of accuracy of reference. And still less do I like the refusal to

enrich the English tongue by the adoption of foreign words—for how

otherwise is the language to grow ? Of course one can use descriptive

vernacular names — which, by the way, not everyone is competent to

frame—but that is a clumsy way out of the difficulty, more suited to the

German language than to the English. But the English way of dealing

with a foreign bird has commonly been to adopt its native name, and I

must say I think with excellent results, granted that people don’t know

what is meant at first; let them know that the name given is what the

bird is called in its own country by its own human fellow-countrymen, and

if it is worth noticing at all they will take to the outlandish name readily

enough, if it be at all euphonious and possible of pronunciation.


This is not mere theory. Who would change the names of the

Dhyal and Shama, the Budgerigar and Lory, the Cockatoo and Cassowarv ?

These names meant nothing at first, but people have now got used to them,

more or less, according to the commonness of the birds in question. True

you may call a Budgerigar an “Undulated Grass Parrakeet,” but you will

not find many people to follow you ; the name is too long for an essentially

practical language like ours.


Now as to the Sibia; Sibya is the name given to the bird by the

Nepalese, who know it as a native. It is not an ugly name, nor hard to

say; and as the bird represents a very distinct and recognizable genus, it

has surely a right to a name of its own. A Sibia is a .Sibia, and there is an

end of the matter; you can call it a Black-headed Tree-babbler if you like

a descriptive name, but I would lay long odds on the real name winning in

the long run.



