viii PREFACE. 
not themselves seen, and thus casting a doubt upon the accuracy 
of their predecessors, and at the same time leaving an opening for 
the description of objects as new, which have already been well 
described, but are thus improperly cast into oblivion. 
To that great man Linnzus we are indebted for the establish- 
ment of a uniform System of Nature, on a plan which has been fol- 
lowed by all subsequent Naturalists. To him also we owe the founda- 
tion of the binominal system of nomenclature, based upon cer- 
tain rules. This “invaluable principle” was first established in 
1758, and it has been found to be most beneficial in fixing the 
names of the very numerous objects in nature, defining, as it does, 
in two words, the particular subject intended to be spoken of. I 
have therefore thought it right to adopt, in every instance, the ge- 
neric names which he proposed, and with regard to specific names 
I have followed up the opinion expressed by the Prince of Canino, 
that “it is not fair to assume that our own binominal system of 
nomenclature was established before his time, because we meet with 
a few instances capable of being referred to the invaluable principle 
which he was the first to generalise and render universal.” For 
this reason I have always taken Linnzeus’s specific name in prefer- 
ence to the names given by his predecessors, and in our sense of 
the term improperly so called. 
The first editionof the “ Systema Nature ” was published in 1735 
under the auspices of Gronovius and Lawson. The class of Birds 
in it consists of 47 genera, and Linneus at the same time enumerates 
the different species that he referred to each genus ; they amounted 
to 117, and are given under the single names of his predecessors. 
There is one curious fact which exemplifies the uncertainty of no- 
menclature, for we find several generic names proposed in this edi- 
tion which were subsequently erased in the one in which he esta- 
blished the binominal system: viz. Grus, Ciconia, Cygnus, Grau- 
calus, Vanellus, Casuarius and Luscinia. Yet these identical divi- 
sions, and in four cases, under the same names, are at present em- 
ployed by Ornithologists without any reference to their having 
been first proposed by him. I have therefore restored to him 
the credit of their proposal. The following table will illustrate the 
various alterations that he made in his system of nomenclature 
