CA. CoUES ou OrnithofJiilologicalities. [January 



Dcndroeca: we said the "full form" would be Dcndroecetes; so it would 

 be ; and the fact that there are more Greek models for a shorter form does 

 not affect our statement in any way.* But before we leave this subject 

 we must express our surprise that Professor Merriam should as a purist 

 and classicist even by implication assent to such a monstrosity as Den- 

 drceca, or Dendrcecetes either, considering how "many classicists now 

 insist that we shall write Mousaios instead oi Micsceics." 



In orthoepy, we find that the Professor catches us in a number of "false 

 quantities," and we feel the ferule on our knuckles. We gracefully concede 

 the point, and with alacrity add the expression of our amazement that 

 there are not more of these dreadful things to be atoned for — considering 

 that we are habitual sinners in this respect in our conversation, with no 

 hope of repentance ; and that it was only by the most resolute buckling 

 down to that point that we got so many of our quantities about right. We 

 are likewise pleased to learn that we may return to Helmitheriis and 

 pelasgia on the authority of Aristotle and ^schylus, and may S3.y ;plagata 

 or plagiatadiS vfe may prefer. We also heartily endorse Professor Mer- 

 riam's suggestion, more notably Utopian than novel, that future minters 

 of bird-Latin shall say what they mean in coining names, and so save 

 future authors and their critics a deal of trouble and vexation of spirit. 

 That is not a Quixotic idea; it is a dream of Arcadia. But what would 

 then become of reviewers, should philologists and ornithologists prove 

 Arcades ambo? 



(c) We have thus written ourselves into such a blessed good humor, 

 that we hardl}^ have the heart to adduce the real gravamen of our rejoin- 

 der. We had two reasons for replying to Professor Merriam. But for these 

 we should have let his remarks go for what they may be worth : for we 

 seldom find it necessary now-a-days to take issue with those critics who 

 honor our productions with their distinguished consideration. 



Our contention is, that Professor Merriam's article conveys the impi-es- 

 sion, to all excepting scholars capable of weighing his remarks with ours, 

 that it is a "sockdolager"; that is to say, that it would make those very 

 persons; whom our 'Lexicon' was designed to assist and benefit, believe 

 a pretty nearly worthless work to have been effectually deprived of its 

 pernicious effect by being thus handsomely and conclusively crushed 

 beneath the weight of professorial philological erudition. But in point 

 of fact, nothing of the sort has occurred. Nothing would be easier 

 than for us to tilt, and pretty successfully, against almost every one of the 

 purely philological points which our critic has raised. But whei-e would 

 be the use ? The majority of the readers of 'The Auk' would merely dis- 



* While we are on words ending in -oscetes, let us whisper to our critic that he missed 

 one of the best things that lay in his line. Baird, in 1858, coined three words, which 

 he wrote Fooccstes, PedioccBtes , Nepkoccstes. Sclater, in 1859, emended the first of these 

 into Pocecetes, and we later followed suit with Pedlcecetes and Nephcecetes, on the idea 

 that oIk€ttis was concerned. The fact is, these words were formed, like Ammoccetes, 

 etc., from koitt], PooccBtes {\.Q.,Pooccetes) meaning the bird that makes her bed in 

 the grass, etc. 



