158 



necessary, as all that we wish to enforce is, that 

 certain rules of nomenclature should be attended 

 to. So far from increasing the difficulties of the 

 science, as some have supposed, such rules are 

 calculated to lessen its abstruseness to a degree 

 which has as yet been little contemplated. Having 

 thus established that it would be expedient to ad- 

 here to certain rules of scientific nomenclature, we 

 shall now offer a few remarks on English nomen- 

 clature. 



In a complete work on Ornithology, it is of course 

 indispensable to treat equally of every department 

 of the science, and to pay^qual attention to each. 

 And amongst these, vernacular nomenclature holds, 

 or rather should hold, no undistinguished station. 

 Our observations on this interesting and important 

 subject must necessarily be brief, but we will endea- 

 vour to convey some idea of our opinions on this 

 matter. What we wish to insist on with regard to 

 to English nomenclature is, 1st, that each genus 

 should have an English name peculiar to itself, and 

 2d, that the English name of a genus can belong to 

 no other genus, under any combination, as "Field- 

 Wagtail" (Budytes), "Water- Wren" (Salicaria), 

 " Gold-Finch" fCarduelisJ, &c. Surely it will not 

 be contended that any of the members of Salicaria 

 are Wrens ! and it scarcely mends the matter to 

 patch up the generic name Water- Wren. For a 

 Salicaria never can be a Wren, any more than a 

 Pyrrhula is a Finch (FringillaJ, or a Nightjar 

 a Swallow (Hirundo). Nothing is commoner 

 than to find all the Sylviadce designated " Warblers" 

 in ornithological works, while in Latin they are di- 

 vided into many distinct genera ! Surely such fla- 

 grant errors as these must greatly increase the dif- 

 ficulties of science. Nor can we admit with Mr. 

 Strickland (see Analyst, No. 11), that the English 

 names of birds belong wholly to our mother-tongue, 



