?4'2 ON THE CLASSIFICATION OP BIRDS. 
with those that rest — apparently — upon demonstrative 
evidence. If the system is artificial, these “ new 
ftenera” 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 
(vid, 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 mt intended for those who study na- 
tural history as a science, but merely for the mass of 
tnankind. 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 periodic,als, we 
may be expected to say something upon it. — It is con- 
tended by those who advocate this new system of ver- 
tiacular nomenclature, first, that all birds should bear 
such names as will prevent them from being confount(ed 
’t-ith others with wdiich 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. 
(20,".) First, there can be no doubt that vulgar errors 
in the naming of birds are very general. The goat- 
sucker (Capri mtilgns) does not suck goats : the hedge 
sparrow (Accentor) is not a real sparrow : the tit-monsc 
(Pm-ns) is a bird, and no quadruped : the titlark is a 
warbler: the long-tailed mag (Parus candatus) is no 
magpie ; and in this manner we might object, and rea- 
•sonahly, 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 
