﻿242 ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF BIRDS. 



with those that rest — apparently — upon demonstrative 

 evidence. If the system is artificial, these u new- 

 genera" may be adopted, or not, at pleasure ; but in every 

 attempt at a natural arrangement, it would be better to 

 place all supposed types of form or subgenera at the 

 end, in an appendix, or as sections of the named group 

 to which they seem to make the nearest approach. 



(202.) Trivial or vernacular names cannot be said 

 to come within the range of scientific nomenclature, 

 because they are not intended for those who study na- 

 tural history as a science, but merely for the mass of 

 mankind. They frequently vary in different periods, and 

 not only in every language, but in every province. To 

 attempt, therefore, to have a uniform standard of the 

 English names of birds, is as hopeless as we venture to 

 think it would be useless. Nevertheless, as the ques- 

 tion has been discussed in some recent periodicals, we 

 may be expected to say something upon it. — It is con- 

 tended by those who advocate this new system of ver- 

 nacular nomenclature, first, that all birds should bear 

 such names as will prevent them from being confounded 

 with others with which they have no affinity, or which 

 conveys, directly or indirectly, some erroneous impres- 

 sion ; and, secondly, that every genus or subgenus, 

 bearing a patronymic name, should also have a distinct 

 English one. This, we believe, is the substance of the 

 two reformations contended for. In theory, they ap- 

 pear very good ; let us see, however, what they would 

 become in practice. 



(203.) First, there can be no doubt that vulgar errors 

 in the naming of birds are very general. The goat- 

 sucker (Caprimulgus) does not suck goats : the hedge 

 sparrow (Accentor) is not a real sparrow : the tit-mouse 

 (Parus) is a bird, and no quadruped : the titlark is a 

 warbler : the long-tailed mag (Parus caudatus) is no 

 magpie ; and in this manner we might object, and rea- 

 sonably, to one third of the English names now in use. 

 Some few of these, in systematic works upon our native 

 ornithology, where the most expressive English names 



