* In the four remaining Orders, I shall not give the Tribes, Families, and Sections, as my present aim is more Nomenclature than Classification,

* Selby has most erroneously called this bird "Wood Wren;" which name belongs to an American bird described by the eloquent and enterprising Audobon, in his graphic work, Ornithological Biography, vol. ii., p. 452.

* Mr. Blyth thinks the Grosbeaks (Coccothraustes) to be the typical form of the Fringillidæ ; others, the Siskins, (Carduelis): but I agree with Selby, in thinking the Chaff Finch and Mountain Finch to be the types of the Family.

+I have given my reason for thinking that the k should be omitted in Cucco, Mag. Nat. Hist. vol. viii. p, 256,

The orders Grallatores and Natatores I must leave for another opportunity. The foregoing list is far from being so exact as I could have wished, and the specific names do not, in all cases, agree with the excellent rule laid down by Wilson, namely, of expressing some peculiarity common to no other of the genus. This, indeed, in several cases would be almost impossible; as in the case of the October, 1835.-VOL. III. NO. XIII.

D.

dipper (cinclus). Speaking of two species of this genus, Bonaparte says:"The two species are so much alike in size, shape, and even colour, as to defy the attempts of the most determined system-maker to separate them into different groups." And thus (especially as the localities and habits of all the members of this interesting genus are so similar) it would be very difficult to hit on an appropriate specific name, either in vernacular or scientific nomenclature.— "Aquatica" does not distinguish the species, in the present system, though in that of Willoughby it answered the purpose very well: he calls the bird "Merula aquatica, Water Ouzel." Nor is the term Europea, applied by Stephens, unobjectionable; being, as Mr. N. Wood candidly owns, rather vague. (Vide Analyst, vol. ii, p. 421). And here I cannot but acknowledge the very handsome manner in which that intelligent writer has mentioned my paper on Nomenclature, which appeared in vol. ii., p. 305, of "The Analyst," and which was, by some mistake of the printer, signed "N. F." Instead of adhering to his own name, after being convinced of its impropriety, as, I am sorry to find, several writers do, he at once-although the objection was slight-gave up his own name and adopted the improved one. in earnest in his search after truth.

This is the conduct of one The same writer says (vol. ii,

p. 239) :-" I am extremely happy in being able to mention Temminck and Stephens amongst those writers on Ornithology who have attended to this important part of nomenclature. Even these have not always succeeded, but they have got the principle, and that is more than half way towards being right." I agree in thinking Temminck and Stephens, on the whole, good nomenclators, but both have erred in many instances, of which, by way of illustration, I will give examples. Temminck includes the Eagles, Buzzards, Harriers, Hawks, &c. in the genus Falco; but instead of applying one French generic name, (Faucon) as he has done in his genus Silvia, he gives no less than six! The two Kinglets he includes in the genus Silvia; but instead of applying the name Becfin (as through the rest of the genus) he calls them Roitelet-which would be the proper name in the system of Selby. The genus Gallinula he calls Poule-d'eau, instead of Gallinule, as Vieillot has very properly done. There are several more errors of this kind, but the nomenclature is generally correct, and, compared with that of Buf