18S4.I Merriam ou fJic '■CoKcs Check Lisf and Lexicon.'' A'l 



In the next number (151), we are told that "the connecting 

 vowel o {oi SetopJiaga) need not lengthen befcjre //■." Cliange 

 "need not" to jn/tsl not. Neither the Greek aspirate nor the cor- 

 responding Latin h has any eftect on the quantity of the preceding 

 vowel, according to Greek and Latin rules, and Dr. Coues's quan- 

 tities are regularly marked by such rules. "Need not" leaves 

 open the possibility of the long vowel. Is it in obedience to this 

 possibility that we have PHtrbchelidon in 163, Zonbtnchia in 275, 

 leiicb'phrys in 276, &c., or are they typographical errors, which 

 are plainly quite frequent? 



The c of Tephrocotis (203) is declared to be a "connective 

 consonant." Unless the originator of the word asserts that he 

 resorted ta this daring expedient, it would be best to seek some 

 easier solution of the jDroblem. kotCs, "head," suggests itself as the 

 probable form for the second element. 



A frequentl}' recuning example of what in these days of com- 

 parative philology is regarded as vicious teaching consists in 

 declaring that Latin words which are only cognate to the Greek 

 are derived from it, as -ceps from K€<j)a\Ti (56), Hirtindo from 

 XeX-iStov (159), nebiilosa from vt<}>eXTi (476) , etc. That these are 

 kindred forms is true, but for their origin we must look to some 

 common Aryan stock from which each developed its special form 

 after the separation of the Italic and Hellenic tribes. Some Latin 

 words, of course, have been imported from the Greek in historic 

 times, and such may be properly said to be derived. 



The notion that the Greek is older than the Latin appears to have 

 led to the introduction of some useless lumber. So long as the 

 Greek contains a word cognate to the Latin and used in ornithology, 

 it is well to have it cited for the information of the learner. Indeed, 

 I should go further, and adduce the derivative or cognate word in 

 English wherever we chance to have one. But such summer-day 

 saunterings as appear in No. 306 might have been^ omitted to 

 advantage. Within the same language, too, we find unnecessary 

 material. To be more explicit, it may be asked what is the ser- 

 vice, when deriving familiaris from famllia (62), of adding, 

 "or older yamiltas '?'' Such a piece of information does not assist 

 the learner ; or rather, would not do so, even if it were a fact. 

 JFamilias ^ however, is not an older form of the nominativey««//- 

 //a, but an archaic form of the genitive lox fa77iiliae. Again, 

 in No. 166: — "Ampelis. Gr. djxireXis or ajjiireXos." There is no 



