on Mr. G. R. Gray's ' Genera of Birds.' 423 



For Megistura write Mecistura (from prjuKrros). This genus should 

 be placed next to Parus. 



In the last line poicilotus should be written pnecilotus. 



P. 24. Oppel published his genus Tanypus in the ' Mem. Ac. Mu- 

 nich.' in 1812, and his name ought therefore to supersede Grallina, 

 Vieill. Meigen used the name Tanypus for a dipterous genus, at a 

 later period. 



P. 25. Dasycephala cinerea is the Muscicapa cinerea, Gm., accu- 

 rately described and figured by Brisson, Orn. Sup. p. 52. pi. 3. f. 3. 



The Formicivora nigricollis of Swainson is the Motacilla grisea, 

 Gm., and Myiothera super ciliar is, Licht. 



Campylorhynchus appears to me to belong to the Troglodytince, a 

 group so largely developed in South America. 



The word Goldana seems to be arbitrarily invented without any 

 derivation. The practice of coining nonsense names, such as Viralva, 

 Dafila, Assiminea, Azeca, &c, originated with Dr. Leach, and has 

 fortunately not been introduced to any great extent, at least among 

 the higher classes of animals. It is, I think, very objectionable, 

 being contrary to the genius of all languages, and leading the etymo- 

 logist to waste his time in pursuing a phantom. Many of the names 

 given by the French school are sufficiently absurd, yet they gene- 

 rally exhibit an attempt at etymology, and are therefore far more 

 rational than these nonsense names. Every generic name when first 

 proposed ought to be accompanied with an explanation of its etymo- 

 logy. 



Mr. Gray changes the name Grallaria rex (Gm.) to G. varia 

 (Bodd.), on the ground of priority. It becomes a question, how- 

 ever, whether the Latin names given by Gmelin to Buffon's species, 

 may not be held to have acquired a prescriptive right from the length 

 of time that they have been used in the science. There is no doubt 

 but that Boddaert's names for Buffon's birds, as well as Scopoli's 

 names for Sonnerat's, were prior by some years toGmelin's 'Systema;' 

 but they were published in works of such confined sale, that they 

 never became current. To go back to these names now would be to 

 alter the nomenclature of several hundred species after it has been 

 established half a century. All this difficulty and confusion arises 

 from the practice which has prevailed in France from the days of 

 Buffon, and which Latham unfortunately followed, of describing new 

 species by a vernacular name unaccompanied by a scientific one. The 

 result is, a race among systematists to be the first to give Latin names 

 to such species, the original describer loses the credit of having his 

 name recorded, and the species themselves are loaded with a heap of 

 nearly contemporaneous synonyms. 



[To be continued.] 



