30 
CHAPTER OF CRITICISM. 
translation of which I have in my possession), Selby’s Ornithological Illustra¬ 
tions, Montagu’s Ornithological Dictionary , and though last not least, the British 
Birds of that prince of xylographers, Thomas Bewick. I have also read a 
multitude of papers in the Zoological and other Journals by Swainson, Vigors’ 
Gould, &c., and have examined specimens of nearly all our British birds in 
various collections, public and private, provincial and metropolitan; in Mr. 
Morris’s among the rest, to which I have had the pleasure of contributing some 
specimens, and hope still to be enabled to do so. 
I did not state that Cuvier had actually laid it down as a rule , that generic 
names should invariably be of Greek, and specific ones of Latin origin; but I 
positively affirm that he has acted on it in practice in the great majority of 
names throughout his invaluable work,—on reference to which I find the des¬ 
cription of the Nutcracker is headed—“ Caryocatactes (Cuv.)” only. It is 
true, even to a proverb, that every general rule is liable to exceptions (except, 
of course, Mr. Morris’s general rule as applied to scientific zoological nomen¬ 
clature), and the principal object I had in view in my paper, was to prove that 
no such exceptional general rule was necessary, or likely to be generally adopted. 
It is easy enough for any one to lay down general rules, but the question is, will 
the scientific world take them up, or, as Shakspeare says, “ you may call 
Spirits from the vasty deep, but will they come when you do call them.” If 
any applause however is due to the proposal above alluded to, I simply say, 
“ Palmam qui meruit, ferat” (meaning, of course, Mr. Morris). If any part of 
my paper was unintelligible or obscure, I am sorry for it; my meaning in the 
clause to which Mr. Morris has particularly directed your attention is this : that 
it ought to be considered equally admissible to give birds, &c., names (both 
generic and specific) composed wholly of Greek, or of Latin , or of both, provided 
the names themselves are truly appropriate. To illustrate my meaning stil* 
more plainly, take, for example, Himantopus melanopterus (both of Greek 
origin ),Falco per egrhius (both Latin), Machetes pugnax (one of each) ; but where 
both languages are employed in naming the same individual, that the generic 
name should be of Greek and the specific of Latin origin ; Caryocatactes nuci- 
fraga, for instance, I consider better than Nucifraga caryocatactes. 
Allow me to say a few words, Mr. Editor, on your own critique on my pa¬ 
per.—You blame me for doing what has been done by the most eminent natural¬ 
ists, from the earliest antiquity to the present time; in short, from Adam to 
Aristotle, from Aristotle to Pliny, from Pliny to Linnaeus, from Linnaeus 
to Cuvier, and from Cuvier to Messrs. Morris, Sweeting, &c., for naming 
the Osprey Ichthyaetus piscivorus, because both words carry the same meaning. 
What think you of Machetes pugnax (Cuvier), Caryocatactes nucifraga (Nillson), 
and Aetus Aquila (Morris) ? and if these Colossi of literature and science are 
right, why am I to be considered wrong for doing the same thing ? Will you 
