276 Proposed Reform of Zoological Nomenclature. 
animals bear in their native countries is often of great use to the 
traveller in aiding him to discover and identify species. We do 
not therefore consider, if such words have a Latin termination 
given to them, that the occasional and judicious use of them as 
scientific terms can be justly objected to. 
c. Technical names.—All words expressive of trades and pro- 
fessions have been by some writers excluded from zoology, but 
without sufficient reason. Words of this class, when carefully 
chosen, often express the peculiar characters and habits of ani- 
mals in a metaphorical manner, which is highly elegant. We 
may cite the generic terms, Arvicola, Lanius, Pastor, Tyrannus, 
Regulus, Mimus, Ploceus, &c., as favourable examples of this 
class of names. 
d. Mythological or historical names.—When these have no per- 
ceptible reference or allusion to the characters of the object on 
which they are conferred, they may be properly regarded as un- 
meaning and in bad taste. Thus the generic names, Lesbia, 
Leilus, Remus, Corydon, Pasiphe, have been applied to a Hum- 
ming bird, a Butterfly, a Beetle, a Parrot, and a Crab respectively, 
without any perceptible association of ideas. But mythological 
names may sometimes be used as generic with the same propriety 
as technical ones, in cases where a direct allusion can be traced 
between the narrated actions of a personage and the observed 
habits or structure of an animal. Thus when the name Progne 
is given to a Swallow, Clotho to a Spider, Hydra to a Polyp, 
Athene to an Owl, Nestor to a grey-headed Parrot, &c., a pleas- 
ing and beneficial connection is established between classical lite- 
rature and physical science. 
e. Comparative names.—The objections which have been raised 
to words of this class are not without foundation. The names, 
no less than the definitions of objects, should, where practicable, 
be drawn from positive and self-evident characters, and not from 
a comparison with other objects, which may be less known to the 
reader than the one before him. Specific names expressive of 
comparative size are also to be avoided, as they may be rendered 
inaccurate by the after discovery of additional species. The 
names L’icoides, Emberizoides, Pseudoluscinia, rubeculoides, maxi- 
mus, minor, minimus, &c., are examples of this objectionable — 
practice. 
f. Generic names compounded from other genera.—These are 
in some degree open to the same imputation as comparative words ; 
but as they often serve to express the position of a genus as inter- 
mediate to, or allied with, two other genera, they may occasionally 
be used with advantage. Care must be taken not to adopt such 
compound words as are of too great length, and not to corrupt 
them in trying to render them shorter. The names Gallopavo, 
