274 National Geographic Magazine. 
notes relate chiefly to this class. Specific names may be said to 
have two distinct origins, first, those of formal origin where the 
name has been given pro forma and published in a book or map 
relating to the region by its discoverer, or by the earliest ex- 
plorers. This covers the case for a small body of names. Second, 
there is a very large body of names which appear to have arisen 
without such formal origin, and to have, as it were, grown up by 
common consent in the usage of the people of the region. 
That which it seems profitable to discuss here, and now, is the 
principles which should be adopted and followed in the selection 
of the names which are to go upon the map; principles which 
will enable one to discriminate when usage is divided, between 
that which should be adopted and that which should be rejected. 
To make this clear, a few instances of the peculiar questions which 
arise may be cited, and then some of the guiding principles stated 
which it might be possible to adopt and to follow. 
The river which flows along the western edge of New York 
City is locally known as the North River. Shall this be called 
the North River, or Hudson River, or Hudson’s River? And if 
this geographic name is printed in the text of a book, will you 
print river with a capital letter or a small letter? It must be 
borne in mind that this question is asked not for the purpose of 
immediate or categorical answer, but for the purpose of eliciting 
thought and discussion upon the principles which should control 
the answer. 
In 1793 Vancouver entered and mapped Port Townsend, which 
he formally named Port Townshend. At the present time the 
city situated upon that harbor, as well as the harbor itself, is uni- 
versally known as Port Townsend, the “/ ” in the original being 
omitted. This is a clear and specific case, where the name form- 
ally applied by the original explorer is now modified in its 
orthography by usage. What form of the name shall be adopted ? 
The former or original name or the present modified name? And 
if the original name is to be adopted, shall we proceed similarly 
in all cases and go back to the original form ? 
In the case of names which have undergone transformations 
through ignorance or through usage, shall an attempt be made to 
restore the original orthography ? Take the case in Missouri of 
the stream called Bois Brule, or burnt wood, and which has be- 
come in the usage of the residents in that part of the world Bob 
Ruly, and is so spelled in the local publications, and so pronounced 
in the local usage. 
