* I have a fine specimen of the Gigantic Fowl in my collection. I kept it among a flock of poultry, with whom it lived on the best terms imaginable; but it was one day found drowned in a pond, into which it was supposed to have been driven by a quarrelsome pair of Pintados.

In the foregoing list I have strictly attended to the rule laid down in the twenty-sixth volume of The Mirror, page 69: "Each genus should have an English name peculiar to itself." It is not essential that the generic name should have any meaning; perhaps, indeed, it is preferable that it should not. Thus, Abern or Abarn (Neofron), Fauvet (Ficedula), Snipe (Scolopax), Duck (Anas), &c., have no meaning; but they answer their purpose as well as, and, perhaps, better than, the following names, which have a meaning:-Shearwater (Procellaria), Diver (Colimbus), Creeper (Certhia), Longbeak (Macroramphus), &c. With regard to specific names, I have avoided, as much as possible, taking them from the

country in which a bird is discovered. Such names can only be given, with propriety, when a bird is found exclusively in a country, not inhabited by another of the same genus. Thus, the Red Ptarmigan (Lagopus Scoticus, LEACH), is, I believe, found only in Britain; but then, other birds of the genus are, also, found in the same island: thus the term " British" and " Britannicus," to which it would otherwise be entitled, is inapplicable. The practice of giving the names of persons has, also, been discountenanced. "In science, the practice of distinguishing persons rather than facts ought to be discarded," says Mr. Jennings, and I fully concur in the remark. "Common" and "vulgaris" are, also, objectionable specific titles; for a bird which is common in one country may be very rare, and, perhaps, not found at all, in another. "Great" (magnus), and "little" (parvus), and "greater" (major), and "lesser" (minor), are, also, objectionable; for another species may be discovered which is yet greater, or smaller, than that to which the epithet is applied. Such generic names as Philomeloides, Meruloides, Milvulus, Laniellus, should, also, be avoided, as implying a relationship to those genera from which the names are derived, namely, Philomela, Merula, Milvus, and Lanius. Such compounds as Haliaetos, Chrysaetos, Gypaetos, Montifringilla, Nycticorax, are inadmissible; for a generic name should not be a compound of a generic and specific (as those are), but a generic only.

The specific name should not be founded on a generic character We frequently see "Loxia curvirostra :" the term crucirostra, however, applies equally to all the Crossbills (Crucirostra), and has been very properly used as a generic name by Wilson, Cuvier, and others. We frequently, also, see "Common Avoset (Recurvirostra avosetta," "Black Cormorant (Phalacrocorax cormoranus)," &c. ; this is making the English generic name into the specific one in Latin: it would be preferable to write Avosetta atricapilla, and Cormoranus carbo. Authors, likewise, frequently give generic and specific names, which have the same meaning conveyed in different languages; for example, Erythaca rubecula, Caryocatactes nucifraga, Phænicura ruticilla: it would be acting more in accordance with reason to name these birds thus,-Rubecula familiaris, Nucifraga punctata, Ruticilla luscinia. Mr. Blyth says: "For reasons already

mentioned, I prefer the designation Rubecula, and have termed the Robin Redbreast, Rubecula familiaris, a name to which none can object." This title is singularly appropriate, as applied to our little friend "with bosom red," besides being far more euphonious than the harsh name 66 Erythaca." Greek names should be avoided as much as possible, it being desirable to draw the scientific nomenclature from one source.

Selby says he adopts Cataractes in preference to Lestris, on account of the priority of the former; Cataractes having been given by Willughby, and Lestris by Illiger and Temminck. Then why has he not adopted Pluvialis instead of Charadrius, and Ficedula instead of Curruca? Those names have the claim of priority and euphony too. With regard to the Fauvets, Blyth remarks: "The best and most appropriate name that has hitherto been applied to the Fauvettes, is the term Ficedula, of Aldrovand. The appellation Curruca (derived from the Latin word curro, to run), cannot, with propriety, be affixed to any genus of warblers, inasmuch as they all move forward by hopping; it would, therefore, I think, be better to reject altogether the term Curruca, as objectionable and inappropriate, and to call the genus Ficedula." Curruca I have applied to the Annets, as these birds may be appropriately so called. There is only one British species, the Alpine Annet (Curruca collaris, W.). "Wild" and ferus can of course, never be made a specific name, for domestication does not change the species of a bird. Mr. Neville Wood, in his accurate account of the Brake Nightingale, (see Analyst, vol. ii, p. 394), has committed this error: he calls the Ring Duck (Anas boschas, Lin.), the "Wild Duck." There are, however, many species of wild Duck: if he had intended to specify the wild bird in contradistinction to the tame, he should have said the "wild Ring Duck (Anas boschas, var. ferus);" or, for the domesticated variety, the "tame Ring Duck (Anas boschas, var. domestica). When it is necessary to mention the birds often, the specific term "Ring," or whatever else it is, may, of course, be omitted, but "wild" and "tame” can, in no case, be admitted as specific

names.

A new mode of designating birds is now practised by some Ornithologists for instance, suppose they wanted to designate the

:

White Ptarmigan (Lagopus mutus), they would write White (Ptarmigan) Grous, (Tetrao (Lagopus) mutus); the Snow Longspur (Plectrophanes nivalis), they would call the Snow (Longspur) Bunting, (Emberiza (Plectrophanes) nivalis); the Cinereous Ossifrage (Ossifraga cinerea), they would call Cinereous (Ossifrage) Eagle, (Aquila (Ossifraga) cinerea); the Whiteheaded Abern (Neofron Alpina), they would call the Whiteheaded (Abern) Vul ture, (Vultur (Neofron) alpina). However pretty this may be in theory, it would be found a very bungling method for practical purposes. These Ornithologists contend that, besides the generic and specific name now universally given to each bird, there should also be a sub-generic appellation, which they place, as above, between parenthesis. I cannot, however, see a single practical advantage to be derived from these "sub-genera," however they may serve to amuse the systematist in his closet. They entirely destroy the beautiful simplicity of the binary system of Linnæus, and, so far from being a help to, appear to me calculated to retard, the student. They will, doubtless, be found as useless, for all practical purposes, as the sections of Temminck.

If I have not rendered the foregoing remarks perfectly clear, I shall be most happy to give further explanations, as discussion frequently elicits truth. I shall be equally ready to attend to suggestions respecting the names of any birds, as I am aware that several of the specific ones are objectionable, and it is not to individual things, but to broad principles, that I am attached.

Derbyshire, Nov. 9, 1835.

S. D. W.