116 REPORT— 1842. 



§ A. The best zoological names are those which are derived from 

 the Latin or Greek, and express some distinguishing characteristic of 

 the object to which they are applied. 



[Classes of objectionable names.~\ 

 It follows from hence that the following classes of words are more or less 

 objectionable in point of taste, though, in the case of genera, it is often neces- 

 sary to use them, from the impossibility of finding characteristic words which 

 have not before been employed for other genera. We will commence with 

 those which appear the least open to objection, such as 



a. Geographical names These words being for the most part adjectives 



can rarely be used for genera. As designations of species they have been so 

 strongly objected to, that some authors (Wagler, for instance) have gone the 

 length of substituting fresh names wherever they otcur ; others (e.g. Swain- 

 son) will only tolerate them where they apply exclusively, as Lepus hiberni- 

 cus, Troglodytes europceus, &c. We are by no means disposed to go to this 

 length. It is not the less true that the Hirundo javanica is a Javanese bird, 

 even though it may occur in other countries also, and though other species of 

 Hirundo may occur in Java. The utmost that can be urged against such 

 words is, that they do not tell the whole truth. However, as so many authors 

 object to this class of names, it is better to avoid giving them, except where 

 there is reason to believe that the species is chiefly confined to the country 

 whose name it bears. 



b. Barbarous names. — Some authors protest strongly against the introduc- 

 tion of exotic words into our Latin nomenclature, others defend the practice 

 with equal warmth. We may remark, first, that the practice is not contrary 

 to classical usage, for the Greeks and Romans did occasionally, though with 

 reluctance, iutroduce barbarous words in a modified form into their respective 

 languages. Sec&ndly, the preservation of the trivial names which animals 

 bear in their native countries is often of great use to the traveller in aiding 

 him to discover and identify species. We do not therefore consider, if such 

 words have a Latin termination given to them, that the occasional and judi- 

 cious use of them as scientific terms can be justly objected to. 



c. Technical names. — All words expressive of trades and professions have 

 been by some writers excluded from zoology, but without sufficient reason. 

 Words of this class, when carefully chosen, often express the peculiar charac- 

 ters and habits of animals in a metaphorical manner, which is highly elegant. 

 We may cite the generic terms Arvicola, Lanius, Pastor, Tyrannus, Reguhis, 

 Mimus, Ploceus, &c, as favourable examples of this class of names. 



d. Mythological or historical names. — When these have no perceptible re- 

 ference or allusion to the characters of the object on which they are conferred, 

 they may be properly regarded as unmeaning and in bad taste. Thus the 

 generic names Lesbia, Leilus, Remus, Corydon, Pasiphae, have been applied 

 to a Humming bird, a Butterfly, a Beetle, a Parrot, and a Crab respectively, 

 without any perceptible association of ideas. But mythological names may 

 sometimes be used as generic with the same propriety as technical ones, in 

 cases where a direct allusion can be traced between the narrated actions of a 

 personage and the observed habits or structure of an animal. Thus when the 

 name Prognc is given to a Swallow, Clotho to a Spider, Hydra to a Polyp, 

 Athene to an Owl, Nestor to a grey-headed Parrot, &c, a pleasing and bene- 

 ficial connexion is established between classical literature and physical science. 



e. Comparative names. — The objections which have been raised to words 

 of this class are not without foundation. The names, no less than the defini- 

 tions of objects, should, where practicable, be drawn from positive and self- 



