REMARKS UPON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 



525 



Dictionaries containing all the known species of animals (or of any- 

 particular class pf animals), arranged in alphabetical order, and fur- 

 nishing the student with the principal facts connected with the habits 

 and economy of each, and also with the derivations of their technical 

 names., would be a most acceptable work, not only to professed 

 naturalists, but to every one unwilling to remain in ignorance of the 

 habits and properties of animated nature. As Martin's Dictionary of 

 Natural History, the only one in our language, was published so long 

 ago as 1785 (I believe there has been no new edition subsequent to that 

 period), and consisted of only two volumes, it of course does not 

 contain the names of the many hundreds of animals which have been 

 discovered since that time, and, consequently, it frequently fails to 

 supply those who are fortunate enough to possess a copy of it, with the 

 information they seek. 



Our Encyclopaedias profess to supply every information upon natural 

 history that can be required, but, like a good many other works, they 

 only profess; for even the most modern Encyclopaedias that have 

 appeared are sadly deficient in point of zoology, many genera (particu- 

 larly those in entomology), comprehending numerous species, being 

 altogether omitted. The French have two or three " Dictionnaires 

 d'Histoire Naturelle," which far surpass anything of the kind that 

 has hitherto been produced in this country. It is the absence of a good 

 and copious dictionary of natural history, written in the English lan- 

 guage, which causes so many mistakes among our naturalists as to the 

 identity of the species, makes them mistake the one species for the 

 other, and commit other blunders equally mischievous and detrimental 

 to the progress of science, which thus becomes retarded by a maze 

 of error and confusion. The synonymes, which constitute the 

 principal obstacle to the advancement of the student, nearly exceed in 

 number the amount of species themselves, and threaten to far exceed 

 them, unless some means be devised to check the existing baneful 

 passion for name-making, among those whose anxiety is to puff their 

 empty names into notice, though they have done but little to promote 

 the welfare of the science itself. Would that our government would 

 select a certain number of our most learned and zealous naturalists, and 

 incorporate them into a society, giving them the sole privilege to alter, 

 or increase, when necessary, the nomenclature of natural history, and 

 also giving the power of punishing those who presumed to infringe 

 upon their privilege. Now, this may appear a droll wish, but 

 when we consider how great is the popularity of the study of natural 



VOL. T. — NO. XII. (DECEMBER, 1833.) S S 



