1S84.] Cotes 011 Or)iHhophiloloiricaIities. C^ 



cover that a war of words was going on, and would be bored to death. 

 Does Professor Merriam flatter liimself that the clientele he seeks in 'The 

 Ank" are interested in his nice points? His article is a good article, 

 entirely out of place. It should have been addressed to philologists, 

 through an appropriate medium. Otherwise, before concluding his 

 observations, he should have explained just what bearing his criticisms 

 have; how far he expected to influence ornithological opinion of the 

 general trustworthiness and value of the treatise; what damage he sup- 

 posed he had done, and how much of the book, if any, he thought might 

 survive the infliction, etc. In fine, Avhy not have given us his opinion of the 

 book on the whole.? If it ought to be damned, whj' not have said so, in 

 language that any one could iiave understood .? No, Professor, you are quite 

 wrong. We have done our share of reviewing for many years, and have 

 learned to appl^- to the works of others a touchstone which we leave yo\x 

 to discover the art of using. You will, we trust, perceive that touch- 

 stone in the paragraphs which have preceded this one, and in those which 

 are to follow. 



Our other reason for replying is, that we are anxious to have the benefit 

 of all the sound criticism we can secure, in view of a third edition of the 

 'Check List.' We wish to be set right wherever we have gone wrong. The 

 praise that our little piece of pioneering has received from mouths of wise 

 censure no more blinds us to its many defects, nay, great defects, than 

 does such criticism as we have met open our eyes to anj' of its real merit 

 and usefulness. Our annotated copy stands ready to receive and incorpo- 

 rate every correction of a wrong etymology, of a false quantity, of an 

 inelegance even, which may be pointed out; but it is not open to any i-e- 

 sults of fiddling above the philological bridge — that being quite out of 

 our line, and entirely foreign to the scope and aim of this particular book. 

 We have for some time intended to review our list of names, and make 

 ourselves a good many needed corrections — partly the result of our own 

 studies, partly the fruit of several just and generous criticisms which our 

 work has elicited. As inost of our real blunders appear to have escaped 

 Professor Merriam's observation, we beg to call his attention to the follow- 

 ing list of words ; and, since he has assumed censorship, we have a right to 

 require hiiii to give us the benefit of his learning; with the assurance that 

 it will be kindly received, respectfully considered, and, if found available, 

 be incorporated in the next edition of the 'Check List,' with proper credit 

 to himself. * 



* Should Professor Merriam wish to study bird-Latin further, we can confidently 

 commend to him 'A List of British birds compiled by a committee of the British 

 Ornithologists' Union.' This is what we refer to in following paragraphs as the 'Ibis 

 List,' in which Mr. Henry T. Wharton has done for British Birds what we have at- 

 tempted to do for American ones. The Index of Gray's 'Hand List' might also furnish 

 him with food for thought, while Sundevall's 'Die Thierarten des Aristoteles,' u. s. w., 

 might be found to contain some valuable reflections. 



