THE ORNITHOLOGICAL GUIDE. 53 



to. These remarks having already extended to a 

 greater length than I originally intended, I here 

 close my paper." 



This paper is in the right spirit, and if two or 

 three of our scientific Ornithologists were to take 

 up the subject in the same way, notwithstanding, the 

 forebodings of Mr. Strickland and his followers, 

 (if he has any,) nomenclature would in a very 

 short time assume a very different aspect. However 

 men may shut their eyes and their understandings 

 to argument, yet facts are not so easily set aside. 

 The anti-reforming race — the clogs as it were on 

 human improvement — may flinch from " one of those 

 pestilent fellows that pins a man down to facts" but 

 so long as Comparison and Causality have a place 

 in the human mind, those who are unfortunate 

 enough as to have but a weak development of these 

 organs, will in vain attempt to prevent progression, 

 though they may retard it for a time.* 



I shall now glance over a few of the principal 

 Ornithological works in order to see how far their 

 authors coincide with Mr. Strickland's creed of 

 Nomenclature. Speaking of the Downy Woodpeck- 

 er, Wilson says : — " This, and the two former spe- 



• It has been suggested that if Bull Finch is objected to for the 

 genus Pirrula, Tit Lark for Anthus, &c, Butter Fly should be also 

 rejected for the genus Papilio, and Dragon Fly for Libcllula ; — certainly 

 they should ; and to say nothing of accuracy, would not the names Pap- 

 ilule and Libelule be far more euphoneous than the barbarous 

 names Butter Fly and Dragon Fly? These changes, however, must 

 be very gradual, and we must commence with the most important. 



