S6 



CouES £>« OrnitJiofiJiilologicalities. [January 



No. 4. IliacHs. Professor Merriam's remarks upon this word are 

 interesting and valuable, especially as thej also bear upon No. 141, 

 trichas. See also the 'Ibis List,' p. 3. But how does this view bear upon 

 No. 283, Passerella iliacaf Merrem, in naming an American Fox Spar- 

 row iliaca, certainly could not have intended to call it a Trojan. We said 

 it might be intended to note some resemblance to Turdiis iliactis, or refer 

 to the conspicuous markings of the flanks (iliac region). Most probably, 

 we may now suppose iliaca, as applied to 'the Fox Sparrow, means simply 

 thrush-like. 



No. 33. Calendula. We were doubtless right in deriving this word 

 from caleo, but wrong in saying that it was "apparently coined by Brisson 

 in 1760"; for the 'Zoologist' reviewer says that it was used in botany 

 centuries ago, quoting Gerard's 'Herball,' 1597: "The marigold is called 

 Calendula ; it is to be seen in floure in the Calends of almost every 

 moneth." 



No. 86. Motacilla. We must take definite issue, and agree to disagree, 

 with all those who, upon purely etymological grounds, say that motacilla 

 does not mean literally wag-tail. The 'Ibis List' states the case thus : 

 '•^Motacilla, as if motdcula from '*motax, from jnoio = I keep moving. 

 Hence not a compound as has been alleged [by ourselves, for example], of 

 a non-existing word kiXXos = a tail." This makes motacilla mean, of 

 course, a little thing that keeps moving; whei-eas we insist that it means 

 the bird that wags its tail. No matter what it ought to mean, to be etjmio- 

 logically proper; \t does mean wag-tail, ^qiiod semper caudam movet, 

 and is sj^nonymous with KiWovpos, crewroTru'YLs, 5/«r«5, hockeqiieue, etc. The 

 etymologists, we admit, are perfectly right ; but we submit that the orni- 

 thologists who make or use the set of words ending in -cilia do intend it 

 to mean -tail ; and we are glad to learn that "some philologists array a 

 Sanscrit cognate" in favor of this view. Motacilla is harder to defend 

 than such words as ruticilla, albicilla, atriciUa, bombycilla, etc., which do 

 mean, and wei"e meant to mean, red-tail, white-tail, black-tail, and silk- 

 tail. W^e are ready to surrender our technical etymology (which was sim- 

 ply a groping in the dark after what was needed), but we really have a 

 rio-ht to ask Professor Merriam, or Mr. Wharton, to explain bombycilla, 

 for example, on any other theory than that it means silk-tail. 



No. 169. Myiadestes. This unhappy word being up for castigation 

 ao"ain, after having caused an international controversy in a number of 



/articles, we are proud to find Professor Merriam with us as to its derivation 

 from |j,ma and efetrTtjs, which we believe we were the first to insist upon, 

 , when combatting the idea that it should be changed to Myiadectes. But 



we cannot agi-ee with him that the proper form should be Muiedestes. 

 We should sav Myiedestes, as the 'Ibis' reviewer has pointed out. Swain- 

 son originally wrote Myadestes, but he was as ^reat a sinner as an average 

 Frenchman in compounding words. By the way, will Professor Merriam 

 tell us what should be the nominative plural of Myiadectes? For we 

 observe that the "Ibis" reviewer has it Myiadectce. 



No. 191. Pyrrkula. This we called a diminutive of /^i'r/-/«^'; = irjfppo's, -j./ 

 fiery-red (irijp, fire). So it is, inform; but, as Professor Merriam says, the ^/ 



