255 
only never used, but also where it is entirely unknown: why, then, should we 
persist in attempting to diffuse a name conveying an idea which we ourselves 
allow to be erroneous ? 
The same remarks will apply to the other names. Thus, in my intercourse 
with the peasantry, I have found the appropriate name, Dunnoc, to be quite as 
common as the erroneous one Hedge Sparrow: indeed, I am quite surprised Mr. 
Swainson should advocate the latter, which has long ago been abandoned by all 
writers on the British Fauna. Tit -mouse is, also, generally abandoned in all our 
works, from the magnificent production of Gould on The Birds of Europe , to 
Miss Taylor’s little volume, The Boy and the Birds. From what quarter Mr. 
S. obtained the strange name Longtailed Mag, I really cannot tell; but if it is in 
use in any part of the island, why should our author be at pains to bring into 
notice obscure names, at the expense of the appropriate names in more general 
use ? I have been accustomed to hear this bird called by the name Longtailed 
Tit, but as it has lately been removed from the genus Tit, Mr. Blyth has pro¬ 
posed the very appropriate name, Rose Mufflin. Mr. S. tells us that the “ Tit 
Lark is a warbler.” What does he mean by this ? Does he mean to say that it 
is a songster ? or does he intend to denote some particular genus ? And if the lat¬ 
ter which genus is intended ? For the name Warbler has, at various times, been 
used to denote the Willet (Silvia), the Fauvet (Ficedula), the Kinglet (Regu- 
lus), the Whinlin (Melizophilus) , &c., &c.; but, at all events, Mr. S. is wrong, 
for the Anthus pratensis is in the genus Pipit. If Mr. S. makes such mistakes 
as these with regard to British birds, how can his readers rely on his authority as 
to foreign species ? “ Some few of these,” continues Mr. S., “ in systematic 
works upon our native Ornithology, where the most expressive English names are 
inserted, may be altered. The Goatsucker may be called the Nightjar; the 
Hedge Sparrow, Flitwing , which will be rather better than Shufflewing; and so 
on.” There is, however, no “ alteration ’ in writing Nightjar, instead of Goat¬ 
sucker ; this is merely a choice between two names equally well known; but as 
these names are only intended for the “ mass of mankind,” it is of course of little 
importance which we adopt; indeed it may be doubted whether the erroneous 
name is not to be preferred! With regard to the Accentor modularise why 
should Mr. S. be at the pains to invent a new name, when there is one quite un¬ 
objectionable in common use ? I shall not pretend to answer this question ; but 
at all events I may assert that his proposing the new name, Flitwing, would have 
the effect of frightening those averse to innovations, which the adoption of Dunnoc 
would not. 
The next sentence is founded on the erroneous idea that the new names can be 
disseminated in a day or a week, and I shall therefore pass it over, with the re¬ 
mark that the reformed nomenclature must first be adopted by authors, and all the 
rest will follow easily; especially as the taste for works on Natural History is yearly 
* 
