on Mr. G. R. Gray’s § Genera of Birds.’ 423 
For Megistura write Mecistura (from pyxcoros). This genus should 
be placed next to Parus. 
In the last line poicilotus should be written pecilotus. 
P., 24. Oppel published his genus Tanypus in the ‘Mem. Ac. Mu- 
nich.’ in 1812, and his name ought therefore to supersede Grallina, 
Vieill. Meigen used the name Tanypus for a dipterous genus, at a 
later period. 
P.25. Dasycephala cinerea is the Muscicapa cinerea, Gm., accu- 
rately described and figured by Brisson, Orn. Sup. p. 52. pl. 3. f.3. 
The Formicivora nigricollis of Swainson is the Motacilla grisea, 
Gm., and Myiothera superciliaris, Licht. 
_ Campylorhynchus appears to me to belong to the Troglodytine, a 
group so largely developed in South America. 
The word Goldana seems to be arbitrarily invented without any 
derivation. The practice of coining nonsense names, such as Viralva, 
Dafila, Assiminea, Azeca, &c., originated with Dr. Leach, and has 
fortunately not been introduced to any great extent, at least among 
the higher classes of animals. It is, I think, very objectionable, 
being contrary to the genius of all languages, and leading the etymo- 
logist to waste his time in pursuinga phantom. Many of the names 
given by the French school are sufficiently absurd, yet they gene- 
rally exhibit an attempt at etymology, and are therefore far more 
rational than these nonsense names. Every generic name when first 
proposed ought to be accompanied with an explanation of its etymo- 
logy. 
Mr. Gray changes the name Grallaria rer (Gm.) to G. varia 
(Bodd.), on the ground of priority. It becomes a question, how- 
ever, whether the Latin names given by Gmelin to Buffon’s species, 
may not be held to have acquired a prescriptive right from the length 
of time that they have been used in the science. ‘There is no doubt 
but that Boddaert’s names for Buffon’s birds, as well as Scopoli’s 
names for Sonnerat’s, were prior by sonie years to Gmelin’s ‘Systema;’ 
but they were published in works of such confined sale, that they 
never became current. ‘To go back to these names now would be to 
alter the nomenclature of several hundred species after it has been 
established half a century. All this difficulty and confusion arises 
from the practice which has prevailed in France from the days of 
Buffon, and which Latham unfortunately followed, of describing new 
species by a vernacular name unaccompanied by a scientific one. The 
result is, arace among systematists to be the first to give Latin names 
to such species, the original describer loses the credit of having his 
name recorded, and the species themselves are loaded with a heap of 
nearly contemporaneous synonyms. 
[To be continued. | 
