262 ON THE GENUS PITTA. 



It would appear that the proper scientific name of the Ponnunky Pitta 

 should be Pitta brachyurus, not P. hengalensis as generally stated, and 

 certainly not Brachyurus hengalensis. 



It is not desirable here, to go at length into the subdivisions named by 

 Mr. A. R. Wallace (Ibis, vol. vi. 1864, pp. 105-109); a reference to them 

 is sufficient. 



The affinities of the genus Pitta are dwelt upon by the above author 

 in the same article. 



Though the name Pitta has become pleasing from association, yet I should 

 not have adopted it at first. The system of two names, now in use, is most 

 convenient in science ; but the selection of those names should be judicious ; 

 and any change of them is to be avoided, as producing confusion in 

 " Biology " — which word is itself an example or case in point, being used 

 with philological "sorrow " by Huxley, though his Greek regret is not strong 

 enough to make him substitute " Zootocology '' (cf. Nature, Jan. 11, 1877, 

 p. 220). Instances may nevertheless arise where change is necessary : 

 Aluco flammeus is one ; here Aluco is properly used instead of Strix, 



It is not, however, to ornithology, but to botany that we owe the 

 binomial method of nomenclature, first suggested by Augustus Quirinus 

 Rivinus in 1690*, thei-efore before that lucky year (1707) which saw the 

 birth of the unequal two, the illustrious Swede and the Frenchman, Karl 

 Linnaeus and George-Louis le Clerc Buffoon— although, in point of fact, we 

 may truly say that " with Linnseus, and him only at a late period of his 

 life," it was first employed. 



Mr. Wallace ('Geographical Distribution of Animals/ vol ii. p. 301) 



* See Miss Arabella B. Buckley's ^ History of Natural Science/ p. 209. 



