CRITICAL NOTICES OF NEW PUBLICATIONS. 135 



GilHvray is sufficiently ably executed to afford a test of the truth of 

 our position, we should say that the attempt to systematize accord- 

 ing to the inward parts is a failure. 



We have mentioned instances of what appear to us gross errors in 

 our author's classification of the larger groups of birds. As regards 

 the extent of his genera, he has almost invariably followed the most 

 approved modern ornithologists, and in the one case in which he has 

 deviated from these authorities it is probable few will be found to 

 agree with him. We allude to the circumstance of his having 

 placed the Green Grosbeak ( Coccolhraustes Moris J in the genus 

 Linaria, because, says the author, the bill is not sufficiently thick 

 and large in proportion to the size of the bird to entitle it to the 

 rank of the Grosbeak. Now it so happens that in this, as in other 

 instance, figures of the head and bill of the Haw Grosbeak and the 

 Green Grosbeak are supplied. To these, the author triumphantly 

 refers his readers as proofs of the justness of his views. But, unfor- 

 tunately, the cut of the Green Grosbeak's head and bill is anything 

 but correct ; the latter is much too small, and we believe no orni- 

 thologist would recognize the familiar physiognomy of C. chloris in 

 the drawing presented to him. The latter species unquestionablv 

 stands between the Haw Grosbeak and the Linnets, but few, we be- 

 lieve, will doubt that it is much more nearly allied to the Grosbeaks 

 than to the Linnets. In making these sti'ictures we ought, perhaps, 

 to notice that our author does " not profess to add a new system to 

 themany already in partial use," but " merely to disclose the order 

 which I conceive to be best adapted for the present work." Still 

 whether or not he wishes that order to be followed by others it 

 must be and is a new system, as far as we understand the import of 

 the word. 



On the subject of nomenclature our author is not over eloquent 

 but he stands up for the necessity of giving classical scientific 

 names, and holds that generic names should be of Greek, and speci- 

 fic of Latin, origin.* The former rule is important as regards the 

 names of new birds, the latter we consider of no practical value. 



As the subject of English nomenclature has of late attracted so 

 much notice, the opinion of IMr. MacGillivray on that department 

 may not be without interest. 



"As to English names, very little needs be said, further than that were 

 the penera positively fixed, which tliey cannot be for many years if ever it 

 might be well to give them vernacular names, in which case each species 

 ought to have a distinctive epithet or substantive name. Thus, we shall sun 

 I.oseagenusnaniedCVwwi-, to consist of five species, named corar corone' 

 conua; Jriiyilrffus, monedula. The English generic name being Crow we 

 might name the si-ecics Haven Crow, Carrion Crow, Hooded Crow, Rook 

 Cn.w, Uaw Crow. But m all cases single substantive names would be the 

 best : for example, the Raven, the Corbv, the Hoody, the Rook, the Daw 

 Some jiersons propose a general meeting of Rritish ornithologists at London* 

 \ ork, or Edinburgh, for the purpose of^ determining the English nomencla- 



" See The Naturalkt, vol. ii., p. 150. 



