LETTERS 



DUNLTN OR DUNLING ? 



To the Editors of British Birds. 



Sirs, — I have no desire to prolong a discussion on this subject, but 

 I do not Hke to see my views misrepresented as they are in your 

 editorial note to my last letter. 



The " inconsistency " with which I am credited is based on the 

 assumption that, while deprecating the constant changes which are 

 being made in Latin names, I am approving changes in English ones. 

 But that is not so. I propose no new English names. My critics 

 have failed to note the essential difference between substituting 

 one Latin word for another and spelling an English word properly. 

 How the latter course (for which I have quoted precedents) can " make 

 ornithology more confusing," I fail to see. This really is the gist of 

 the matter, and I need say no more. J. E. Ha-rting. 



Sirs, — I hold no brief for Mr. Harting, and being no philologist 

 I am content to leave the elucidation of such matters to others, but 

 in our argimaents let us at least be logical. You, Sirs, are now ' ' sticklers 

 for priority " as regards scientific names, but yet when it is proposed 

 to carry out similar ideas for English names you are at once most 

 strongly against such a proposal. 



In the case of English names, no confusion from the change can 

 possibly arise, as there is no transference of name from one species 

 to another, but merely a slight alteration of spelling. Scientists, 

 and under that term we may include ornithologists, are supposed to 

 be men of education, and for such to persist in spelling a name wrong 

 when they know it to be so, should be a disgrace. What, Sirs, would 

 you think of me were I to address this letter to " Igh Olborn " ? Yet 

 the " g " in Dunling has been elided in precisely the same way as many 

 people fail to pronounce the " H." You yourselves use the corrected 

 spelling for " Redpoll " and " Coal-Tit." Why not " Dunling " ? 



J. Lewis Bonhote. 



[The real question, so far as we are concerned, in this controversy 

 is not simply whether " Dunlin " should be spelt " Dunling," but 

 whether the colloquial names of all our birds should be revised in 

 accordance with the "rules" of philology so as to elucidate their original 

 meaning. We have already indicated where such a course of action 

 would be likely to lead us. We cannot be hold responsible for using 



