184 
will accrue to the science of Natural History in general, from dispassionate discus¬ 
sions on the true principles of nomenclature,” I hope that Mr. Blyth will soon re¬ 
deem his promise at p. 34, and “ take the subject in hand” himself. 
The British Song Birds , lately published, is, I believe, the first English work 
in which the principles have been, not only acknowledged, but acted on. Most 
of the names are unexceptionable, though there are two or three oversights—as 
Phcenicura for Ruticilla , and Brakehopper for Locustel. The English names of 
the genera should, also, have preceded the Latin, instead of coming after : for, in 
an English book, the English names are the most important. 
C. T. Wood. 
Campsall Hall , near Doncaster. 
[Several of our Correspondents entertain views widely opposed to each other on the 
disputed point of a reform in the nomenclature of British Ornithology. We submit their 
communications on this subject to the readers of The Naturalist , in the hope that sugges¬ 
tions may be elicited in the discussion which will prove interesting to Ornithologists.— 
Eds.] 
ON THE RING PIGEON. 
I find Mr. Neville Wood rather sanguine in his hopes of domesticating the 
Ring Pigeon. I have known many attempts at it, which all failed. I never could 
learn that any one of the birds, though taken from the nest and reared up to an age 
when it might be expected, were ever heard to coo. It is a well-known fact that 
a bird of this species taken, with its fellow (which soon died), from the nest, was 
brought to a farm in the neighbourhood of Chichester, where every facility con¬ 
finement could afford was given it to mate with a common Pigeon, without suc¬ 
cess. At eight years of age, it being proved to have consumed as many peas 
as would have brought the sum of ten pounds in the market, an order for its 
decapitation was given forthwith. 
J. C. 
