in the '•^ Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles."" 117 



longing to a genus or a species. It is Perroquet we must consult, 

 not Psittacus. The French Avord is every where the protagonist 

 of the piece, and if the scientifick name is at all introduced, it is 

 in the character of an humble companion in the suite of synonyms. 

 If this practice is not met by us with decided opposition in the 

 outset, it will gain ahead against which we shall in vain endeavour 

 to contend. I do not oppose this mode of nomenclature on the 

 narrow ground of every language having an equal right with the 

 French to become the language of science : but upon the broad 

 principle that there should be but one common language in 

 science ; — that every nation should unite in one universal mode of 

 nomenclature which could be generally understood ; — and that 

 naturalists should endeavour to imitate the harmony observable 

 throughout the objects they cultivate, by the only means in their 

 power, however humble these may be, — a corresponding harmony 

 in their language. In choosing this common language it is un- 

 necessary to contend for the superiour claims of that which is 

 founded on classical authority. Time and science have equally 

 sanctioned the use of it. No modern terms, however important 

 to the nation which furnishes them, could be otherwise than 

 trivial, and sometimes even ludicrous, iu the eyes of others, ia 

 comparison with Avords derived from a Greek or Roman source. 

 The contentions that so frequently break out among the chief 

 introducers* of these familiar terms sufficiently proves the in- 

 stability of the foundation on which they wish to erect their 

 nomenclature. And it certainly is from no blind partiality that I 

 would bestow a preference on such words as Plyclolophiis, Macro- 

 cerciis, PezoporuSy or even Paleeornis^ over such names, although 

 sanctioned by the pen of a Buffon, as Cricks^ and Papegais^ Per- 

 ru-ches and Perriches. 



I have already mentioned that objections have been started 

 against the names of some of my groups. These objections I 

 shall now briefly notice, not because I consider them of import- 

 ance, but to point out how far the same spirit of cavilling without 



* See particularly the observations of M. Vieillot in opposition to some of 

 M. Teniminck's familiar names; [Nouveau Did. if Hist. Nat. Arl. Oruitho- 

 logic,] and M. Temminck's iu answer ; \^Manuel, Introd. p, xii.] 



