IV. On the earliest available Name of the 
Cardinal Grosbeak. 
In Scopoli’s ‘Annus I, Historico-Naturalis’ (Leipzic, 1769) 
we find, on pages 139 and 140, the following description : — 
“ 203. LOXIA RUBRA. 
Loxia rubra, facie nigra. Linn. 1 . c. n. 5. 
Diagn. Tota rubra , una cum rostro. 
Femora tamen magis fusca. 
[p. 140] In M. T. 
Apta nomina rebus inponenda ; nec innocens studium sit turpe instru- 
mentum, quo religio aliqua ludibrio exponatur.” 
The following is a correct translation, with the addition of 
the full explanation of the abbreviations : — 
“203. Loxia rubra. 
Red- grosbeak, with black face. Linn., Syst. Nat. ed. 12, I, p. 300, n. 5. 
Diagn. Red all over in common with the bill. Thighs, however, 
more dusky. 
In the Museum of Count von Thurn (in museo excell, comitis Francisci 
Annib. Turriani). 
One ought to give appropriate names; in order that the innocent 
science shall not become the infamous means of exposing any religion to 
ridicule.” 
It may be well at once to append here, for the benefit of 
the reader, the footnote,* with which the German translator, 
Dr. T. C. Gunther, thought it necessary to explain the sentence 
above. He says : 
“This sentence of our author is incomprehensible to any one 
who does not know beforehand that this American bird, in 
Holland and England, is called the Cardinal, on account of its 
beautiful red color. We have made this remark, although we 
ourselves are of the same opinion, that things offensive to any 
religion should be omitted in every .science” ( !). What would 
Messrs. Scopoli and Gunther say if they could rise from their 
graves, and see that we use Cardinalis as a generic name, and 
that some heretics are not opposed to the specific appellations 
CardueJis carduelis and Cardinalis cardinalis igneus? 
In fact, the bird which Linnseus describes as No. 5 of the genus 
Loxia , in his ‘Syst. Nat.’ (ed. 12, p. 300), is none other than the 
Cardinal Grosbeak — Cardinalis virginianus Bp: “Loxia car- 
dinalis 5. L. cristata rubra, capistro nigro, rostro pedibusque 
sanguineis .... Coccothraustes rubra. Catesb. car. I. p. 38. t. 
38 ... . Habitat in America septentrionali . . . .” Bonaparte’s 
name virginianus dates from 1S38 ; Scopoli’s rubra from 1769. 
As the case does not involve any doubt, and the synonymy is 
clear, I shall only briefly enumerate the forms mentioned in 
Baird, Brewer, and Ridgway’s ‘History of North- American Birds’ 
(III, p. 99). Their names will stand as follows : 
1. Cardinalis ruber (Scop.). 
Ridgw. Nomencl. n. 242. — Coues, Check list, 2 ed. n. 299. 
2. Cardinalis ruber igneus (Baird). 
Ridgw. 1 . c. n. 242a. — Coues, l. c. n. 300. 
3. Cardinalis ruber coccineus (Ridgw.). 
4. Cardinalis ruber carneus (Less.). 
It will be seen that the gender of the genus-name is given as 
masculine. Dr. Coues, in the second edition of the ‘Check list’ (p. 
60), writes ‘ Cardinalis virginian a ,’ and remarks: “As a Latin 
word, Cardinalis is only an adjective ; used substantively, its 
gender is either masculine or feminine. We take the latter, 
because most words ending in is- are feminine.” 
But, in the first place, as the name Cardinalis is “applied 
with obvious signification to the chief officials of the Pope,” its 
gender ought to be masculine, as is that of these “red-wearing 
dignitaries;” and in the second place, Cardinalis “Bp. 1S38,” is 
undoubtedly masculine, as this author writes ‘ Cardinalis vir- 
ginianusi In the special sense of genus-name for the Red 
Grosbeaks it certainly is masculine, and if it is the rule that “words 
ending in is- are feminine,” this word belongs most emphatically 
to the exceptions. We are more satisfied as to the correctness of 
this opinion, since Dr. Coues himself states that the gender of 
cardinalis is ‘either masculine or feminine.’ 
Auk, I, April, 1884. p. I'll H\ 
* p. 168, footnote k, of Johann Anton Scopoli Bemerkungen aus der Natur- 
Geschichte, Erstes Jahr aus dem Lateinischen iibersetzt und mit einigen Anmer- 
kungen versehen von D. Friedrich Christian Gunther Leipzig 1770. 
