210 ORCHARD ORIOLE. 



vations, which I give in the words of his translator. " This bird 

 "is so called (Spurious Baltimore,) because the colours of its 

 " plumage are not so lively as in the preceding (Baltimore 0.) 

 " In fact, when we compare these birds, and find an exact cor- 

 " respondence in every thing except the colours, and not even 

 " in the distribution of these, but only in the different tints they 

 "assume, we cannot hesitate to infer, that the Spurious Balti- 

 " more is a variety of a more generous race, degenerated by the 

 " influence of climate, or some other accidental cause." 



How the influence of climate could affect one portion of a spe- 

 cies and not the other, when both reside in the same climate, 

 and feed nearly on the same food; or what accidental cause could 

 produce a difference so striking, and also so regular, as exists 

 between the two, are, I confess, matters beyond my compre- 

 hension. But, if it be recollected, that the bird which the Count 

 was thus philosophizing upon, was nothing more than the female 

 Baltimore Oriole, which exactly corresponds to the description 

 of his male Bastard Baltimore, the difficulties at once vanish, and 

 with them the whole superstructure of theory founded on this 

 mistake. Dr. Latham also, while he confesses the great confu- 

 sion and uncertainty that prevail between the true and bastard 

 Baltimore and their females, considers it highly probable that 

 the whole will be found to belong to one and the same species, 

 in their different changes of colour. In this conjecture, however, 

 the worthy naturalist has likewise been mistaken; and I shall 

 endeavour to point out the fact as well as the source of this mis- 

 take. 



And here I cannot but take notice of the name which natu- 

 ralists have bestowed on this bird, and which is certainly re- 

 markable. Specific names, to be perfect, ought to express some 

 peculiarity, common to no other of the genus; and should, at 

 least, be consistent with truth; but in the case now before us, 

 the name has no one merit of the former, nor even that of the 

 latter to recommend it, and ought henceforth to be rejected as 

 highly improper, and calculated, like that of Goatsucker, and 

 many others equally ridiculous, to perpetuate that error from 



