259 
by their Latin names : but in no case should a bird not in the genus Psittacus be 
called a Parrot, or not in Lorius be called a Lory. As the English language 
extends into all parts of the globe, English names for each of the genera will spring 
up naturally. It has been calculated that, within a century from this time, the Eng¬ 
lish language will be the native tongue of upwards of three hundred millions of 
the human race ; and when the great continent of America, and the vast island of 
Australia shall be peopled by descendants of the inhabitants of Britain, surely 
it will be worth while to coin English names for the accommodation of so respect¬ 
able a majority of the human race. 
“ It is only,” concludes Mr. S., “ when we come to follow a theory, whether 
in science or in common matters, down to its details, and see how it will ivork, 
that we can judge of its practicability or of its use. Some few vernacular names, 
indeed, may be occasionally added, but the construction of our language is not 
well adapted for this purpose. To attempt expunging a well known vulgar name 
because it does not happen to express a scientific group, appears equally repugnant 
to common sense and sound judgment.” We have seen how Mr. Swainson’s 
theory (namely, giving the English family name to all the genera) has stood his 
own test; we have assayed it in his own crucible, and have found that what he 
recommended as gold has turned out to be mere lead: at the same time I fear¬ 
lessly invite him to try the theory he opposes in the same crucible, and venture to 
predict that it will come out scathless, even from a furnace seven times heated. 
I do not understand what Mr. Swainson intends when he speaks of “ expunging 
a well known vulgar name because it does not happen to express a scientific group.” 
Instances should have been given, that all misconception might be avoided. Does 
he allude to such names as Rook, Kittiwake, and Smew ? If so, I should answer 
that, as these names do not inform us as to the genus to which each respectively 
belongs, they are necessarily imperfect, and this imperfection might either be 
avoided by adding the name of the genus, as Rook Crow, Kittiwake Gull, and 
Smew Merganser, or else descriptive specific names might be substituted, as 
Barefaced Crow, Gray Gull, Pied Merganser. But, perhaps, he alludes to such 
names as Gold Finch, Bull Finch, Willow Wren, Tit Mouse, Bank Martin, &c. 
These names must be either erroneous or correct; if the former, no unprejudiced 
person can for a moment hesitate as to whether they should be retained or not, 
but if the latter, there is no need to discuss them. A person ignorant of Natural 
History would suppose that the above named birds belong to the genera Siskin 
(Carduelis), Alp or Coalhood (Pyrrula), Willet (Silvia), Mouse (Mus), 
and Martin (Maries) ; and in every instance he would be wrong. Can such a 
nomenclature be desirable ? or, rather, does it not defeat the end for which no¬ 
menclature was formed ? Yes ; and on this account I should recommend all who 
have the interests of the “ mass of mankind” in view to avoid all such names 
as worse than useless. 
