391 
C. J. Sundevall on the Wings of Birds. 
The history of this knowledge is not very extended. It 
includes in the first place the terminology adopted by Linnaeus, 
which is to be found systematically set forth in 1758 in the 
* Systema Naturae/ ed. x. p. 79, and still more in detail in 
1766 in ed. xii. pp. 110-111 *. 
This terminology is extended and improved by Illiger in 
his well-known * Terminologie/ published in 1798 (translated 
into Swedish by Marklin), and reproduced in the same words 
in his f Prodromus Systematis Mammalium et Avium 9 
(1811). There was here no question of anything but a termi¬ 
nology, and therefore scarcely anything was added serving 
essentially to advance the knowledge of the structure of the 
wing ; merely a heap of new names adopted:—Pteromata, 
Ptila, Campterium, &c. Illiger was not sparing of new terms, 
and adopted without hesitation, besides the necessary ones 
which ought always to be retained, a great number which 
are not necessary, and which I must therefore regard as 
superfluous. Of those which relate to the wings I shall 
speak hereafter f. 
Some subsequent attempts do not properly deal with the 
structure of the wing in its entirety. This applies to Isidore 
Geoffroy St.-Hilaire's recently published memoir in his f Essais 
de Zoologie generale* (Paris, 1841), in which the terms obtuse 
and aigile (obtuse and acute), with the superadded more 
exact qualifications sur and sub, are adopted to indicate that 
* “ Alee .... tectee pennis, demum Tectricibus primis secundisque, pos- 
tbe ciliatee remigihus, &c. Remiges primores x.: 1-4 Digiti, 5-10 Meta¬ 
carpi ; Secundarii 10-20 s. 28 Cubiti; nulli vero Brachii ; at Alula spuria 
pennis 3 s. 5 Pollici insidet.” It is impossible that such a clear and com¬ 
plete description could be given in a briefer form. 
f Of course it is not my intention to censure the terminology of this 
distinguished man, drawn up as it is in a truly classical spirit; but we 
should, as far as possible, avoid making terminology into a special study, 
which burdens the memory, and therefore we should follow the prevalent 
example of the general usages of language, and adopt termini technici 
only for parts or ideas which are never or rarely employed in diagnosis, 
and not for those in the naming of which we can avail ourselves of the 
ordinary mathematical terms (which must of course be used in their 
proper signification) or of other generally known and accepted terms (e.g. 
margo alee , instead of campterium , Illig*.). 
2 f 2 
