REMARKS ON THE PRESENT NOMENCLATURE OF BRITISH 
ORNITHOLOGY, 
WITH A VIEW TO ITS REVISION AND CORRECTION. 
By the Rev. F. Orpen Morris. 
There is not, perhaps, any subject connected with ornithology on which so 
great a variety of opinions is entertained, as its nomenclature ; and while all Natu¬ 
ralists admit that the evil should be remedied, there are scarce any two who can 
agree as to the course to be adopted to effect this object. One probable means of 
attaining the great end which we all have in view,—a fixed and corrected nomen¬ 
clature of our native birds,—would be, by a deputation being appointed to meet 
together from various parts of the country, either at London, York, or Edinburgh, 
and consulting pro and con on the propriety of each name proposed or used—to 
establish it finally , or to erase it by common consent. But there is little probabi¬ 
lity—perhaps hardly any possibility—of this course being adopted: in the mean 
time the most reckless and gratuitous changes are prompted by the Naturalist’s 
individual caprice. In briefly stating my own views upon this subject, as an hum¬ 
ble individual among the multitude of ornithologists who are arising up all around 
us, it is far from my wish to cast any slur upon their opinions should I find it 
necessary to animadvert upon them. I am only desirous of breaking the ice for 
some one more capable than myself to cross the lake. 
There are two classes of names in Natural History—generic and specific, with 
regard to which a difference of opinion has been, is, or may be entertained. Now, 
with respect to both of these, I will lay it down, in limine , as an absolute rule 
which is on no account to be deviated from, that, where alteration is unnecessary , 
it is unpardonable to alter ; and that no feeling of vanity, whether felt for one’s 
self or one’s friend—no insufficient or inadequately explored ground of opinion— 
ought to have weight to induce any writer to change an already established name, 
constituted with sufficient reason. With this broad principle all will, probably, 
agree; but upon it there immediately arises the question, “ What is a sufficient 
ground for alteration ?” and this involves a previous question, “ What is sufficient 
to establish a name so that it should not be altered ?” Here it is that the differ¬ 
ence of opinion begins to extend so widely ; for scarcely any two Naturalists are 
agreed definitively on a single name. It is a singular fact that there is, probably, 
not a name (I mean among the better known and better investigated species, such, 
for example, as our British birds) which has not some one synonym at least, and 
most of them a great number : if, therefore, this mania is not checked, the evil 
will in time progressively extend to the whole catalogue of nature, and, as if her 
creatures were not already sufficiently varied and diversified, we shall increase 
