1 16 Mr. Vigors's Repli/ to sorne Observations 



Yet amidst the dearth of interest that pervades the present con- 

 troversy, — if controversy it can be called, — some points of im- 

 portance occasionally exhibit themselves ; and to one in particular 

 which involves a question of some moment in nomenclature I shall 

 beg leave more closely to draw your attention. 



In looking to the observations contained in this letter, and ia 

 those in a former volume,* which referred to the groups of the 

 Fakonidce, you cannot have failed to observe that an attempt has 

 been made, by the opponents of the modern genera in Ornithology, 

 to introduce these very genera under the denomination of sections, 

 and with names derived from their own language, in preference 

 to names according with the usual language of science. Although 

 the title of genus is denied these groups, still are they virtually 

 separated as genera, virtually characterized as genera, and vir- 

 tually named as genera. The Avhole credit of forming the group, 

 as well as the name thus falls to the share of him who by the 

 simple process of sinking the title genus, and the scientifick 

 name of the first characterizer, appropriates the group to himself. 

 In this manner the Jsiur of M. Bechstein, or the Milvus of M. 

 Cuvier, may be claimed as the property of M. Desmarest or M. 

 Temminck, or any other declaimer against new genera, under 

 such denominations, translated for the most part from the original, 

 as les Jutours or les Milans. This attempt at superceding the 

 use of scientifick names by the introduction of French names is 

 beginning to be carried to an extent which leaves no doubt of the 

 ultimate object in view. In almost all the professed works of 

 science, it is the French word that is quoted,andnot the scientifick. + 

 In the very " Dictionnaire''* before us the same language furnishes 

 the title of every article to which we are io refer, whether be- 



♦ Vol. I. p. 189. 



+ A single instance •*:'i\\ point out the extent to which this practice may be 

 carried. M. Vieillot some time since characterized a most important and well- 

 defined group among the Laniadte which he named Thamnophilus. M. Tem- 

 minck introducing this genus into his " Manuel,'' gave it, as is customary a 

 familiar name, that of Batara. Having occasion to refer to this group, which 

 decidedly is M. Vieillof's, the naturalist of the " Planches Cotoriees," looking 

 only to the familiar name which he himself had given it, considers it and calls 

 it his own genus. His words are " mon genre Ba^flra." [PI. Col. Art. Barita 

 destructor, pi. 213.'] 



