258 
tells us that the name Todidce should give way to Muscicapidce , because the 
genus Muscicapa , and not Todius, is typical: then why not be consistent, and 
act on this principle throughout? 
Having thus considered the first proposition, let us scrutinize the second. 
The Silvia melodia and the Regains auricapillus , he tells us, “ belong to the 
same genus.” This would lead most naturalists to imagine that Swainson adopt¬ 
ed the genera of the old school, which is far from being the case. Either from 
an affectation of singularity, or from some other unexplained cause, Mr. S. does 
not use the term, genus, in its usual and proper signification, viz., the lowest 
groups of species; these he calls sub-genera, and applies the name genus to the 
groups next above these, for which Selby has very judiciously proposed the name 
j Domus, and the termination ites. The sub-genera disfigure Mr. Swainson’s favour¬ 
ite Northern Zoology —a work which would have been improved in many respects 
had it been half the size and a quarter the price. To this work I refer for a prac¬ 
tical illustration of the inconvenience of the sub-genus—a name which should be 
altogether abandoned—and will now continue our examination. 
Mr. Swainson next proceeds to consider the theory that each genus should 
have a vernacular name peculiar to itself: “ In regard to the second proposition,” 
he says, “ that each genus and sub-genus in general Ornithology should have a 
distinct vernacular name, the difficulties are of a much more insuperable nature. 
It would require the coinage of between 300 and 400 English names for birds of 
whose manners and habits we know little or nothing: and, after all, what possible 
use would this accomplish ? Is it not sufficient, for instance, to designate the five 
primary groups of the Parrots (Parrot family) by their present well-known names 
of Maccaws, Parrots, Cocatoos, Lories, and Parakeets, without breaking these up 
into twenty-five others, which would make ordinary persons lose sight, in fact, of 
the groups themselves, in a multiplicity of small distinctions which they never 
could comprehend, and which would only perplex them ? But what should we do 
with the Woodpeckers, (Woodpecker family)—a group of the same value, and 
therefore containing as great a number of sub-genera as the Parrots (Parrot fami¬ 
ly) ? Five-and-twenty names, at this rate, must be devised for all the variations 
of a Woodpecker ! and they must be appropriate, for otherwise what is their use ?” 
Mr. S. here takes great pains to refute and show the insuperable difficulties of a 
proposition of his own making: for, as far as I am aware, he is the first who has 
proposed to give an English name to every known genus of birds. This would be 
a very useless scheme; for the majority of these genera are known only to a few 
scientific ornithologists, and perhaps known only to them as dried skins ; whereas, 
English names are not intended for the scientific few, but for the unscientific 
many—or, in Mr. Swainson’s phrase, for the mass of mankind. Those few genera 
that are known generally, should, of course, be called by their proper English 
generic and specific names, and the rest, known only to the scientific, will be called 
