217



Correspondence , Notes, etc.



general habit of long-standing, so that in citing the present instance there is no intention

of criticising the ‘Avicultural Magazine,’ but merelj' to call attention to a general prac¬

tice, not only in reference to birds but to other American animals, for which we have never

been able to find a reasonable explanation. We might probably fill pages with lists of

names like case here cited. Our birds have standard vernacular names by which they are

known to all American bird students, and being the book names of the birds employed by

all American writers they cannot be unknown to intelligent bird students abroad. Where

then is the sense for useing a stilted translation, as in the case of the “ White-eyebrowed

Song-Sparrow,” of its Latin specific designation in place of its simple and far more

characteristic American name of ‘ White-crowned Sparrow ? ’ To make matters worse, the

species is not even a ‘ Song-Sparrow,’ which is a generic designation applied universally in

America to a large group of wholly different birds, to which the White-crowned Sparrow is

not closely related. It is the custom of American writers, when referring to the birds of

other English speaking countries, to employ the names current in the countries where the

birds live, and we do not see why it is not a good method for our English friends to

follow when speaking of American birds. If they could bring themselves to do this their

references to American birds would often be not only more intelligible but save some

annoyance to American readers.


Ill the first place it may be remarked, incidental!}', that the male

parent of the hybrids was Zonotrichia leucophrys, and the female Z. pileata,

not vice versa as stated in the above quotation from the Auk.


The. species of Zonotrichia most frequently imported into this country

is Z. pileata, a bird that has always been known here as the Chingolo or

Pileated Song-Sparrow. In the last published list (Vol. 9) of Vertebrates in

the Zoological Society’s Gardens, there are three species of Zonotrichia , two

of which are called “ Song-Sparrows,” and the third, Z. leucophrys, is

termed the “White-eyebrowed Finch.” To term two species of the genus

“Song-Sparrows” and the third merely a “Finch” is inconsistent and

misleading, and therefore in the article which the Auk refers to I called

Z. leucophrys a “ Song-Sparrow ” to which term it is quite as much entitled

as are either Z. pileata or Z. albicollis. Nevertheless I quite admit that

in this country we ought to recognise the vernacular names employed in

other English-speaking countries for birds which are natives of those

countries, so long as these are appropriate. In the United States the term

“ Song-Sparrow” is applied only to the genus Melospiza, and it seems that

we must term the species of Zonotiichia merely Sparrows, which hardly

seems a suitable appellation.


I11 cases in which the vernacular name is eminently unsuitable, as

it often is, we in this couutry are surely entitled to adopt a term

that is more appropriate. For instance, in Australia several of the Parra-

keets are termed “ Lories,” which are in no way entitled to this designation.

The well-known King Parrakeet is called the “ King Lory,” the Crimson¬

wing ( Ptistes erythropterus) the “ Red-winged Lory,” and sometimes Pennant’s

Parrakeet is called the “ Crimson Lory,” and the Yellow-rumped Parrakeet

the “ Swamp Lory.” The term “ Lory,” should, of course be confined to

the Loriidce, the Brusli-tongued, honey-eating Parrots. But there is no

reason why we should not, where possible, follow the Australian vernacular



