120 
ON THE. POPULARITY OF NATURAL HISTORY. 
of mother-of-pearl, containing four blue gems; a Rose , bathed in the dews of 
morning , was suspended above it; the male Bullfinch sat motionless on a neigh¬ 
bouring shrub, like a flower of purple and crimson. These objects were reflected 
in the water of a stream, together with the shade of an aged Walnut-tree, which 
served as a back-ground to the scene, and behind which appeared the ruddy tints 
of Aurora. In this little picture the Almighty conveyed to us an idea of the 
graces with which he has decked all Nature.” 
Though perhaps, in this finished sketch, it is a little stretch of imagination to 
compare our sprightly 66 Hedge Coalhood ” to a flower , yet as a double picture is 
exhibited in it, and either is charming taken alone, the pleasing exhibition may 
almost excuse it. For, independently of the Bullfinch, the old Walnut-tree re¬ 
flected in the stream, with the vermillion tinges of the eastern sky, seen through 
its foliage, is itself a picture, and the Bullfinch’s nest and eggs in the Bose-bush 
is an object by itself requiring no adventitious aid to heighten its beauty. 
It will now perhaps be perceived that popular Natural History is nothing 
more than a description of natural objects so true to Nature that every one admits 
the resemblance, being either tested by his own experience or by that of others, 
and the information at the same time conveyed in that non-technical language 
which may be understood by every person of plain education, although unskilled 
in and unacquainted with the myriological vocabulary of scientific formulae. I 
have no wish to disparage scientific nomenclature when restricted to legitimate 
bounds, but in an appeal to facts it would be absurd to blink] altogether the 
question of phraseology. Scientific names can only be understood by scientific 
persons, and it follows as a matter of course that a book that can be interpreted 
only by the initiated, will have but a limited range of readers. This ought to 
be considered by those authors and editors of periodicals who, as in the Entomo¬ 
logical Magazine , indulge at times in such legions of latin, as I fear to render it 
unnecessary to cut-up much of their hot-pressed paper. It is true that certain 
subjects, limited in their range, or intended for the learned of all countries, 
may with the utmost propriety appear in a latin dress, but surely an Eng¬ 
lish periodical is not the place for them, if that periodical seeks an exten¬ 
sive circulation. By parity of reasoning, any work on Natural History aim¬ 
ing to be read by the public at large, must to some extent be written on the 
principle of what I have shown popular Natural History to consist. There 
are two especial reasons for this ; a work overloaded with technicalities is 
uninteresting, and very few will toil through a work' void of interest. The next 
point is an important one, though for the most part lost sight of—the newspaper 
press of this country is almost wholly ignorant of Natural History, at all events 
unacquainted with its details, and hence unable to interpret common occurrences 
and common appearances without the assistance of a practised observer. Th« 
