218 
What impediments can arise, for example, in consequence of Prionus coria- 
rius , or Philonthus impressicollis , or Emus hirtus , having no other than Latin 
names, beside the thousands of other British insects which have no names except 
those of Latin or Greek composition ? Nay, more ; how very few are there even 
of those which have English names that are called by them generally by collec¬ 
tors, throughout the country : take the very first that occurs in Curtis’s Guide to 
an Arrangement of British Insects , the lovely genus Cicindela: “ ex uno disce 
omnes .” The Cicindelce are anglicised Sparklers ; but are they ever so called 
even in common entomological parlance ? Why, then, should we find a difficulty 
or make one with birds which scarcely exists in the case of insects, and almost 
still less with plants ? Is it not quite as easy to speak of the Oriolus galbula 
as of the Golden Oriole ? to point to a Hirundo riparia as to a Sand Martin ? 
or to say that we have shot a Phalaropus as a Phalarope ? I have a great re¬ 
spect for antiquity, which my former arguments will sufficiently prove; but in the 
cause of science all things subordinate to it should give place, and we must make 
a sacrifice even of our prejudices and associations in her behalf. Why should we 
create a difficulty with one class or one genus of the same class which does not 
exist in another ? In many, even in by far the greater number, we have no pre¬ 
judices to contend with, no English names to remove; and, even among birds, 
the more recently discovered ones have either no English names, or, if they have, 
the use of them is scarcely ever called into exercise : take for example the Anthus 
Ricardi , which is much more frequently so called, even by those who are not conver¬ 
sant with Latin, than “ Richards' Lark ,” and the Cursorius isabellinus than the 
Cream-coloured Swiftfoot. With what are more properly called the indigenous 
birds, the difficulty in the way is the universal diffusion of their English names, 
given to them before science had yet assigned Latin names to them ; with more 
modern discoveries this is not the case, and, therefore, the same difficulty does not 
exist. Then, again, the original birds, if I may use the term, have shorter, more 
vernacular, and unmeaning names ; but when we come to more recently disco¬ 
vered or less generally distributed species, then we find longer, more descriptive, 
and more modern names. Of the former, take as examples the Robin, the 
Throstle, Dunnock, Gull, Cormorant, &c., of the latter, the Olivaceous Gallinule, 
White winged Crossbill, Funereal Owl, and Whitebellied Swift; but this, I am 
willing to admit, is partially accounted for by the necessity of the discrimination 
of diverse species, modern discoveries pointing them out, though formerly, perhaps, 
all comprehended under one common name. But if, for the present, we are to 
retain English names at all, we ought, in the first place, to alter them as little as 
possible, “ nomina trivilia nunquam absque summa necessitate mutanda sunt 
from us English names for themselves as well as our more favoured native birds, especially 
when the former are now almost as extensively diffused, in a preserved state, in this coun¬ 
try, as the latter in a living state. 
