[ -6 4 ] 



"by the reader, on account of the terms employed; whUff I pre- 

 mife that I do not require elegance, but only that the ex- 

 preffions mould be clear, and not liable to be mifunderftood. 

 But though I do not infift upon claffical latinity, yet every 

 reader hath a right to expect, that in a dead language- no new 

 words mould be introduced, or eftablimed terms ufed, in a man- 

 ner for which proper authority cannot be produced. 



I mall not have much trouble in citing fuch inftances from 

 the Syftema Naturae, and Fauna Suecica, as every page almoft 

 where there are two lines of defcription, affords them. 



Linnaeus thus fpeaks of the woodcock : 



" Scolopax \riifticola] habitat in appropriates locis, volitans per * 

 e< noctes quafi viam JfriElijfimam in ipfo aere, &c." 



The lpecific difference affigned to this bird is rufticola, which 

 xan only mean, that it frequents the country ; but is not this ap- 

 plicable to ninety-nine birds out of a hundred ? Linnaeus therefore 

 intends to convey fome other idea to his reader ; but what that 

 may be I muft own I cannot comprehend. 



Gefner indeed conceives the woodcock to be the Perdix ruftica 

 of the antients ; but very erroneoufly, his authority being probably 

 the following lines from Martial : 



Ruftica fim, an perdix, quid refert, ]i fapor idem eji'f 

 Carior eft perdix, fic fapit ilia magis. 

 Now by another epigram of Martial's it appears that the perdix 

 was a very fcarce bird in Italy : 



rPonitur Aufoniis avis haec c rariffima menfis, 

 Hanc in lautorum mandere, faepe foles. 

 But without entering into a critical difcuffion what birds were 

 termed by the .antients perdix, and rujiica y it is plain by this 



c 5c. the perdix. 



citation, 



