rio 
ferving 2 treatife on the Latin terms ufed 
in Natural Hiftory; in which I expeéted. 
to find a mafterly difplay of the defects 
of the language ufed in-defcribing the 
diverfified productions. of nature; but 
was extremely pained in. finding myielf 
not only dilappointed in my expectation, 
but in being abfolutely at a lois to com- 
prehend-the end andaimof Mr. Branp 
(the author} m his erudite difiertation. 
"The harfhnefs and obfcurity of the Latin 
terms ufed in natural hiftory have been 
long very jufily and feverely cenfured ; 
nor have the tranflations of them in our 
language been Jefs difapproved. As-the 
attempts hitherto made to improve an 
familiarize thefe terms do not appear to 
have aided the promotion of the very 
important defideratum, a pure, clafiical, 
and chafte language of natura! hiftory, 
I fhall endeavour, in the following cur- 
fory remarks upon this interefting fub- 
ject, to fhew the defects of our prefent 
‘Englifh terms, and the inconvenience 
neceflarily arifing from them; and thence 
deduce the propriety of reforming them, 
together with the principles upon which 
fuch a reform fhould be conftruéted. In 
this view I fhall wave any further notice 
of Mr. BRaND’s treatilfe, it being, to the 
beft of my judgment, though profeffedly 
written on the fame fubject, foreign to 
my purpofe. 
Many of our moit enlightened natu- 
*ralifts have laboured to eftablifh a verna- 
cular language of natural hiftory; par- 
ticularly in the fcience of botany ; but 
moft of them have lof fight of the great 
end intended by a tranflation, viz. the 
adapting the terms to the capacity of 
unlearned and female ftudents, either by 
adhering too clofely to the original Lin- 
nzan obicure language, or by deviating 
too far from it, in introducing terms 
not: reprefenting the ideas they fhould 
convey. Subjected to the former errer are 
ProfeflorMarTyn’s and the LitchfieldSo- 
clety’s anglicized terms; while under the 
latter error Dr. WITHERING’s very crude 
Ianguage particularly falls *. If an af- 
femblage of experienced naturalifts were 
to.convene, for the purpeie of eftablith- 
ing a ftandard language, the interchange 
of their different ideas. upon the fubieéct, 
would certainly accelerate fuch a defign, 

* It will be eafily conceived, that this 
cenfure more particularly . ftrikes at Dr. 
WitTHERING’s-terms, in the 2d edition of his 
*< Botanical Arrazgemert,” he having in his 
laft edition of that valuable work, much im- 
_ proved upon his language, though fti]l very 
amperie. 
Ox the Language of Natural Hiifiory. 
and whatever the refult of their commus> 
nication fhould be, at leaft produce az» 
uxiform. language. ‘This would beef 
fected by laying down certain fixed prin- 
ciples or-data, according to whichyall- 
the Latin terms fhould be tranilated;° 
and if even this fhould not be a perfeét:- 
tranilation, it would neverthelels leffen- 
the confufion and difficulties with which: 
the elementary principles of natural hif-. 
tory are incumbered, by annihilating. 
the diverfity of Englifh terms now ufed 
by different writers to reprefent the fame - 
Latin one. Another difficulty attend- 
ing the ftudy. of natural hiftery arifes 
from the objcurnty of the terms. -ufed;: 
which are frequently the moit obfolete, 
and barbarous that could be colleéted. 
I ice no reafon myfeli, why the. fcience 
of natural hiftory, in all or any of its. 
departments, may not, like others, be 
as effectually ftudied and clearly under- 
ftood in language purely indigenous, as. 
in foreign or naturalized terms. That 
the produétions of nature may be as fully 
illuftrated as any other more popular 
fubject, in the common way, and yet at 
the fame téme in a fcientific manner, is 
evident from a very elegant and,inftruc- 
tive publication, intituled, ‘* Ze Natu- 
ralijt’s Mifcellany,”” in which, to the ac- 
curacy of a complete naturalift, the 
learned author (Dr. SHaw) unites the 
perfpicuity of a chafte and claffical writer; - 
---and that his work may be more ex- 
tenfively ufeful in foreign countries, cor- 
refponding Latin deifcriptions are an- 
nexed to the Englifh ones, which may be 
held forth as fpecimens of Latinity not 
often equalled. by modern writers of the 
higheft claffical reputation, and certainly 
unrivalled by any cotemporary naturalix, 
To a perfon habituated to the perufal.of. 
the Roman authors, nothing can be more. 
grating than the unharmonious language 
ot Linnzus, and thofe writers whe have 
followed his juftly admired fyftem; and 
I muft candidly acknowledge, that I de- 
rive greater fatisfaction from the- lan- 
guage of Bauhin or Ray, than from the 
moft favourite produétions of the iiluf- 
trious Swede; and.often regret, that. 
while he fo fucceisfully laboured in efta- 
blifhing the ducidus ordo in the f{cience of 
natural hiftory, he fhould have intro- 
duced a language io highly repugnant to 
that purity and energy which pervade 
the productions of the beft claffical writ- 
ers. Surely the dignity or the excellence 
of afcience cannot confift in being cloth- 
ed in a phrafeology foreign to every lan-- 
guage, and confequently to the sxeluton 
, @AK 
4 
= 
