ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 117 



evident Characters, and not from a comparison with other objects, which may 

 be less known to the reader than the one before him. Specific names expres- 

 sive of comparative size are also to be avoided, as they may be rendered in- 

 accurate by the after-discovery of additional species. The names Picoides, 

 Emberizoides, Pseudoluscinia, rubecidoides, maximus, minor, minimus, &c. are 

 examples of this objectionable practice. 



f. Generic names compounded from other genera. — These are in some de- 

 gree open to the same imputation as comparative words ; but as they often 

 serve to express the position of a genus as intermediate to, or allied with, two 

 other genera, they may occasionally be used with advantage. Care must be 

 taken not to adopt such compound words as are of too great length, and not 

 to corrupt them in trying to render them shorter. The names Gallopavo, Te- 

 traogallus, Gypaetos, are examples of the appropriate use of compound words. 



g. Specific names derived from persons. — So long as these complimentary 

 designations are used with moderation, and are restricted to persons of emi- 

 nence as scientific zoologists, they may be employed with propriety in cases 

 where expressive or characteristic words are not to be found. But we fully 

 concur with those who censure the practice of naming species after persons 

 of no scientific reputation, as curiosity dealers (e. g. Caniveti, Boissoneauti), 

 Peruvian priestesses (Cora, Amazilid), or Hottentots {Klassi). 



h. Generic names derived from persons. — Words of this class have been 

 very extensively used in botany, and therefore it would have been well to 

 have excluded them wholly from zoology, for the sake of obtaining a memo- 

 ria technica by which the name of a genus would at once tell us to which of 

 the kingdoms of nature it belonged. Some few personal generic names have 

 however crept into zoology, as Cuvieria, Mulleria, JRossia, Lessonia, &c, but 

 they are very rare in comparison with those of botany, and it is perhaps de- 

 sirable not to add to their number. 



i. Names of harsh and inelegant pronunciation. — These words are grating 

 to the ear, either from inelegance of form, as Huhua, Yuhina, Craxirex, Esch- 

 scholtzi,. or from too great length, as chirostrongylostinus, Opetiorhynchus, 

 brachypodioides, Thecodontosaurus, not to mention the Enaliolimnosauras 

 crocodilocephaloides of a German naturalist. It is needless to enlarge on the 

 advantage of consulting euphony in the construction of our language. As a 

 general rule it may be recommended to avoid introducing words of more than 

 five syllables. 



h. Ancient names of animals applied in a wrong sense. — It has been cus- 

 tomary, in numerous cases, to apply the names of animals found in classic 

 authors at random to exotic genera or species which were wholly unknown 

 to the ancients. The names Cebus, Callithrix, Spiza, Kitta, Struthus, are 

 examples. This practice ought by no means to be encouraged. The usual 

 defence for it is, that it is impossible now to identify the species to which the 

 name was anciently applied. But it is certain that if any traveller will take 

 the trouble to collect the vernacular names used by the modern Greeks and 

 Italians for the Vertebrata and Mollusca of southern Europe, the meaning of 

 the ancient names may in most cases be determined with the greatest preci- 

 sion. It has been well remarked that a Cretan fisher-boy is a far better com- 

 mentator on Aristotle's ' History of Animals' than a British or German scho- 

 lar. The use however of ancient names, wlien correctly applied, is most de- 

 sirable, for " in framing scientific terms, the appropriation of old words is 

 preferable to the formation of new ones*." 



I. Adjective generic names. — The names of genera are, in all cases, essen- 

 tially substantive, and hence adjective terms cannot be employed for them 

 * Whewell, Phil. Iud. Sc. v. i. p. lxvii. 



