220 
are not, does he seriously imagine or expect that they will ever come into general 
circulation, or that their cacophony will be endured ? I do assure him that they 
never will. 
One word on the name troglodytes, which Mr. Wood says should be written 
troglodytes, but which error I must also prevent from being perpetuated. The 
word originally was the name of a people, and given to them from their custom of 
inhabiting subterranean dwellings, r^oyXr) a den, and Ivva to enter. Mr. C. T. 
Wood says that the name is engaged for a geiius of Mammals . He commits the 
same error in the word Nicticorax, &c. &c. as every classical scholar must admit. 
I cordially agree with Mr. Wood, that it is to be regretted that unnecessary 
changes have been made in scientific works by Naturalists of high repute, as, in 
addition to the confusion produced, an example is thereby set which may be, and is, 
prejudicial to the interests of science; and it is on this very account that I must, 
in conclusion, take some notice of the favourable opinion he gives in the last 
number of The Naturalist, of Mr. Neville Wood’s book, which, he says, has 
two or three errors, such as Phcenicura for Ruticilla, and Prak chopper for Lo- 
custel. To the first of these appellations, I suppose Mr. C. Wood objects as being 
of Greek derivation, for in Loudon’s Magazine, loco citato, he says, that he ob¬ 
jects to Greek* words being employed at all in ornithological nomenclature ; but as 
he gives no reason for this objection, we have yet to learn their ground of offence. 
As, however, I have avowed myself an advocate for their use, I shall feel thank¬ 
ful for any arguments adduced on the other side ; and if I deem them sufficient, 
I will lose no time in giving my assent. Having nothing at heart in these re¬ 
marks but the advantage and interest of ornithology as a branch of science, I trust 
that Mr. C. T. Wood will receive my strictures in the spirit in wdiich they are 
given ; remembering his own quotation from Mr. Blyth as to the good that will 
result from dispassionate discussion of the principles of nomenclature.f 
I must reserve the synoptical list of British birds, which I propose giving, for 
a future number ; and in the mean time will conclude this paper by stating that 
the idea of the conclave of Naturalists, to decide on the retention or discarding of 
names, is not my own, but was suggested some time ago by my friend, Mr. LI. E. 
Strickland—-a fact I omitted to mention in my last communication. 
* “I abjure the practice of mixing Greek words and Latin together, canusini more bi Un¬ 
guis, in the compounded names of genera or species : it is equally useless and absurd.” 
f Mr. C. T. Wood, in speaking of nomina adulatoria, says that Mr. Lansdown Guilding’s 
opinion entirely accords with his own, and quotes Mr. Guilding, where he says that such 
names should never be applied to genera. But Mr. Wood is speaking of specific names, 
and seems to suppose that Mr. Guilding’s words bear him out in what he says about them. 
Here there appears to be some mistake; certainly, however, I agree with both, that the 
names in question should not be applied to genera. I think the instances of their being so 
used, are comparatively rare. 
[To be concluded in our newt.] 
