WM. G. PRAEGER. 145 
uses of ornithology we want the knowledge of living birds; 
and that they must be spoken of, written of, or sung of in a 
living language. 
It is in plain English that the most useful work of the 
bird-lover must be done. Only in their own language can 
the interest of school children in birds be aroused ; can the 
farmer be taught his truest friends; can the legislature be 
induced to give birds the needed legal protection ; can ap- 
peals be made against thoughtless destruction of so many 
species for fashion’s sake; can the study of birds be pop- 
ularized and the love of birds increased. 
When the Committee of the American Ornithologists’ 
Union published their well known Check-list, they found it 
necessary to preface it with some 70 pages of principles, 
canons and recommendations to govern the nomenclature 
used therein. Scientific names may perhaps be governed 
by such, but language is a growth and not a creation, and 
for our popular names no such hard and fast rules can be 
laid down. Nevertheless, there are perhaps principles of 
common sense and canons of good taste that may help us 
to give to each of our birds a characteristic, workable, and 
euphonious name. 
The American people are performing a great work almost 
unconsciously. As the mythical man in Eden is said to have 
given names “to the fowls of the air and to every beast of 
the field,” so we have to give a name to every living crea- 
ture in this new land of ours. 
That the vernacular names of our birds are not at present 
in an entirely satisfactory state every one who has occasion 
to use them will admit ; and the same will be noticed of the 
names of other animals, especially fishes, and of flowers and 
trees ; and what I am saying will apply more or less to all 
these. Every one who has tried to get information on birds 
from friends, both intelligent and willing, has found that 
confusion in names bars all chance of obtaining reliable in- 
formation. Take for instance the names of our Ducks. In 
10 
