257 
out. That able zoologist lays it down as a rule that, “ if a principle is good, its ad¬ 
vantages will be more and more apparent the more it is followed in detail.” Sup¬ 
pose we test this principle by his own rule : we should then call the Blue 
Tit, Blue Warbler; the Grey Wagtail, Grey Warbler; the Rock Dunlin, Rock 
Snipe ; the Mute Swan, Mute Duck ; and so on throughout. 
“ The Silvia regulus ,” continues Mr. Swainson, “ being at the head of this 
family, should, more especially, be termed a Warbler, par excellence; that is, if 
the same rule is to guide us both in scientific and in vernacular nomenclature. 
By this plan some sort of connection will be pointed out between the modern sub¬ 
genera ; and we shall not have two birds, actually belonging to the same genus, 
(like the Yellow and the Goldcrested Warblers), known by two names which have 
no apparent relation to each other.” The first proposition is founded on an erro¬ 
neous basis; and as the error seems to be very prevalent, it may be as well briefly 
to expose it. Mr. S. here pronounces the genus Regulus to be the typical 
group of the Silviadce (Willet family), and, in accordance with this idea, he says, 
that the name Silvia should be taken from the Willets (of which there are three 
British species) and given to the Kinglets, which he would thus deprive of their 
established name, as, also, he would the Willets, thus creating a double confusion. 
This is bad enough already ; but the plan carries yet other evils in its train ; for 
other naturalists, dissenting from the opinion of Mr. S., may single out another 
genus as typical. This is actually the case, for Mr. Blyth maintains the Fauvets 
(Ficedula) to be the type of the family ; and he, following out Mr. Swainson’s 
plan, would wrest the name Silvia from the unhappy Kinglets, which would thus, 
like other crowned heads, be deprived of their name as soon as they got it. There 
would yet be a third class, who would contend, with Selby, that the Willets are 
the true types of the family, (which I take to be the real state of the case), and 
thus, in one family, there would be continual confusion. And again, suppose 
some new genus were discovered, which Swainson himself should pronounce to be 
the type, he would be obliged to re-take the name Silvia from the Kinglets, to 
which he w r ould then restore the old name ! I have touched on this subject be¬ 
fore ; but as it is still in as full force as ever, I have thought it my duty to treat of 
it more in detail. I have now given my own opinion, fortified by reason ; but I can 
also bring the authority of Mr. Swainson into the field, and turn his own weapons 
against himself. In that gentleman’s work, On the Classification of Quadru¬ 
peds , he says, at page 378 :■—“ We should gladly have retained the name of Ca- 
pridce (Goat family) to this group, had we not ascertained that the Goats were 
an aberrant , and not a typical genus ; these latter groups always giving their 
name to the family.” The family here spoken of Mr. S. calls the “ Antilope fa- 
family, (Antilopidce)” Now this is precisely what I argue for. If the King¬ 
lets are typical, I would call the family the Kinglet family (Regulidcc) ; if the 
Fauvets, the Fauvet family (Ficedulidce) ; and so on. In another part, Mr. S. 
VOL. i. 2 L 
VOL. i. 
