254 
“ Nomenclature,” he observes, “ divides itself into two branches, for all animals with 
which the bulk of mankind are familiar, have two names ; one being the scientific, 
the other the vernacular.” Our author’s remarks on the first being, for the most 
part, sound and judicious, I shall pass on to the second, with which Mr. S. does 
not appear to be so conversant—probably from having paid less attention to them. 
“ Trivial, or vernacular names,” says Mr. S., “ cannot be said to come within the 
range of scientific nomenclature, because they are not intended for those who 
study Natural History as a science, but merely for the mass of mankind.” Thus, 
it seems, according to our author, that those who have not the leisure, or the abi¬ 
lity, or the inclination to study Natural History as a science, are to be condemned 
to learn erroneous names and, consequently, to imbibe incorrect ideas : in short, 
that the benefits of a correct nomenclature are to be confined to the learned few ; 
while the “ mass of mankind” are on no account to participate in them! I should 
rather have said, that correct names were doubly essential to the many, as they 
have not the means of rectifying the erroneous impressions that must unavoidably 
result from them. “ Vernacular names vary,” continues Mr. S., “ in different 
periods, and not only in every language, but in every province. To attempt, 
therefore, to have a uniform standard of the English names of birds, is as hope¬ 
less, as we venture to think it would be useless.” To say that because erroneous 
names are now in common use, therefore it is hopeless that we shall ever be able 
to supplant them by correct appellations, is surely not very reasonable : as well 
might we say, that, because many errors prevail, it is unlikely that they will ever 
give way to truth. That a reform would be “ useless” is Mr. Swainson’s opinion: 
I shall now proceed to examine how far he has succeeded in proving this. 
“ First,” he states, “ there can be no doubt that vulgar errors in the naming 
of birds are very general. The Goatsucker (Caprimulgus) does not suck 
Goats; the Hedge Sparrow (Accentor J is not a real Sparrow; the Tit-mouse 
(Par us) is a bird, and no quadruped ; the Tit Lark is a Warbler; the Long¬ 
tailed Mag is no Mag Pye ; and in this manner we might object, and reasonably, 
to one-third of the English names now in use.” It is well known that most of 
our commoner British species have, as has been remarked of the Common Dipper, 
“ as many names as would suffice for a tolerably well-stocked aviary;” and this 
is the case with each of the birds above-mentioned. Among this multiplicity, it 
would be strange indeed, if not one good appellation could be found : but instead 
of seeking for the most appropriate, our author has here, in every instance, 
singled out the worst , on which plan we might not only object to one third, but 
also to three thirds of the English names. The Caprimulgus Europceus of Lin- 
neus, being known by the name Nightjar in one part of Britain, and by that of 
Goatsucker in another, surely we may be allowed to select the appropriate one 
and reject the other, even supposing that it was wrong to coin an appropriate 
name. There are many parts of Britain in which the name Goatsucker is not 
