SIR, To the Editor of the Analyst. SINCE the framer of the ornithological arrangement in No. 14 of The Analyst informs us that he shall be "ready to attend to suggestions respecting the names of any birds," a few observations on his luminous list, may, probably, not be altogether unacceptable to S. D. W., and to the other ornithological readers of your Journal. Of the general tenor of the catalogue submitted to the public by S. D. W., I much approve; but a few of the minutiæ appear to me somewhat objectionable. As the classification agrees in most particulars with the system adopted by Selby in his Illustrations, it will be unnecessary to offer any remarks on this department. To the investigation of the appellations, Latin and English, I will proeeed without delay. The principle of giving a generic and specific English name to each species, is admirably adhered to; but I fear that some of the English designations are not sufficiently euphonious to allow them to come into general use. I should have considered this but a triffing objection; but it is probable that much stress will be laid on it by those who are averse to innovations, or to a little temporary inconvenience, without reflecting on the advantage that must and assuredly will accrue from the alteration, when effected. To such names as Abern, Ossifrage, Pern, and Forktail, few will object; but the fastidious will not readily assent to Toadeater, Madge, Surn, &c. Fantail, Reedling, Fauvet, Whinling, Kinglet, Longtail, Pinnock, Oatear, Longspur, Goldwing, Coalhood, &c., are admirable, and deserve to be speedily adopted; but what an uncouth term is Brakehopper, for the sprightly bird to which it is attached by S. D. W. It is but fair, however, to admit that, in this case, we have our choice between Brakehopper and Locustel; but it is little better than a "Hobson's choice." Popin is, likewise, a vulgar, Rennie-like name, and Zigzag Wryneck, though singularly appropriate, is not sufficiently euphonious. The same observation applies equally forcibly to Sprigtail, Aptern, and Buzzernel. With the designations of the water-birds there is much less fault to be found, though one can scarce help smiling at Woodock, Zapern, Viralv, Zeme, &c. While I object to the above-mentioned names, I do not at present pretend to offer others in their stead, but have merely pointed them out for the further consideration of the "zealous ornithological reformer of Derby." Of course, I well know the difficulty of obtaining appellations which are suitable in every respect, but still it is not an impossibility. The next point to be considered, is the applicability of the English designations given by S. D. W. The name Fern Nightjar, is not sufficiently exclusive; and I am almost inclined to side with my intelligent friend, Mr. Blyth, in considering European,-though a local, and therefore a partially objectionable, name,-preferable to Fern, inasmuch as the other species-the Vociferator ruficollis, (N. Wood)-is only known in Europe as a straggler, and even the few specimens which were shot, occurred on the confines of Europe, whilst the common species is spread over the whole of that part of the world. I am not certain, therefore, that my former name, V. Europaeus, is not less objectionable than V. melolontha.—Minnow (applied by S. D. W. to the Kingfisher) would suit almost any other individual of the Halcyonidæ, as well as the British Kingfisher; but I admit the extreme difficulty of procuring an exclusive specific name for this bird. I certainly think that it would have been preferable to have retained the Latin name, ispida,* because, though the same objection applies to it as to Minnow, yet splendens is by no means an improvement.— Instead of Brake Nightingale, Mr. Blyth has proposed to me Rusty-tailed N., and it is a curious fact, that that gentleman and my excellent friend, Chas. Liverpool, Esq., M. D., alluded to this name in their letters, at about the same time, and without either of them being aware that the other had proposed it. The Red Lark, mentioned by Montagu and others, is, I believe, merely a variety of the Sky Lark; and I cannot find that the real Red Lark, (A. Pennsylvanica) has ever occurred in Britain.-Seedling cannot, in my opinion, with propriety be allotted to any genus of the Fringillida; the seed-eating is rather a family character than a generic one.— Garden Linnet would, I think, be better rendered Whin Linnet, inasmuch as the bird at all times abounds on furzy commons, while it only frequents gardens during the breeding season. The Brown Starling (Sturnus unicolor) only ranks doubtfully in the British Fauna.-Amongst the water birds, I have little objection to find with the specific names, except that common is employed too frequently. In one or two instances, as the Common Gallinule, it is admissible, as that bird is met with, and most abundantly, in * Though I can scarcely lay claim to being called an "erudite scholar," and though I have not "rummaged lexicons and other musty repositories of ancient lore, in search of the unknown epithet," I have little hesitation in pronouncing ispida to have its origin in piscis, a fish.-See The Analyst, vol. iii., p. 267. almost every part of the globe; but otherwise it is highly objectionable, for reasons adduced by S. D. W. himself. And here I cannot but deprecate the manner in which it has pleased the able framer of this arrangement to spell many of the Latin and English names. Thus, he has Nictea, Cipselus, Silvia, Coridalla, Colimbus, Cignus, &c., for Nyctea, Cypselus, Sylvia, Corydalla, Colymbus, Cygnus, &c. Likewise, "Chuf" for Chough, "Cucoo" for Cuckoo, "Falarope" for Phalarope, "Cwail" for Quail, and the like, the advantage of which I cannot precisely comprehend. Nor is S. D. W. satisfied with reforming the spelling of the names of birds, but he has attacked the names of Naturalists, having commenced with "Mister Mihi Stephens," by substituting the letter v for the superfluous ones, ph! I sincerely hope the other worthies will escape uninjured from the hands of this "zealous reformer." Why, we should hardly know our old friends under the names of Swānsn, Selbi, Looin, Bekstin, Miur, &c.! S. D. W's "zeal" is really a little misplaced when he descends to such frivolities as these. I am, of course, well aware that the above are nothing better than hints or "suggestions;" but as S. D. W. courts these, I trust he will consider them worthy of notice. In a popular work I now have in preparation for the press, entitled The British Songsters, I intend to discuss in detail the English designations of all the species which will be described and figured; and, what is of yet more importance, the proper appellations will be employed throughout. Until the improved English names are adopted in some popular work, I conceive it will be of little avail to preach and demonstrate principles. The organs of Imitation and Love of Approbation, are far more active with the public than causality; and, consequently, authority will much sooner effect the introduction of an innovation than the most subtle reasoning that can be adduced. For a speci men of the work above alluded to, see the Supplement of the Ornithologist's Text Book, where, likewise, will be found a paper on Nomenclature, which was read before the Worcestershire Natural History Society, Dec. 1, 1835. In conclusion, I may be allowed to observe, that the new princi ples of nomenclature, first alluded to in The Analyst, No. 10, are now gradually winning their way into favour; and I think we have every reason to believe that they will ultimately be univer sally acknowledged in Britain, as they already are by our continental brethren. NEVILLE WOOD. Foston Hall, Derbyshire, Jan. 10, 1836. SIR, To the Editor of The Analyst. THERE is no mistake more common, in forming a judgment of fine ideal works of art, than that of approving or censuring those performances according to rules which the crities have derived from authority and precedent. A disposition thus to see by the help of other persons' eyes, appears to me strikingly illustrated, in a long article in your last Number,* in which, after a series of observations upon various matters connected with the arts, somewhat loosely connected, the author proceeds to claim for clever painters a "licence" to introduce into their groups—their “fine ideal works of art”—pleasing figures -young and handsome girls especially-whether they be germane to the matter, or no. The instance selected, is the splendid picture by Mc'Clise" The Installation of Captain Rock,”—exhibited last year; and as certain critics were tempted to question the fitness of some of the groups in this remarkable composition, their remarks are, at once, by an ingenious use of the figure "petitio principii," designated as "inconsiderate." Mr. Carey observes, "I will exemplify it [the alleged painter's licence] by a censure passed on some parts of Mc'Clise's wonderful painting The Installation,' &c. An objection has been particularly made to the introduction of the bevy of very handsome girls on the right of the canvas. Their youthful forms and playful vivacity are, in the principal censor's judgment, improprieties, and where beauty is displeasing, it is not unreasonable to suppose that homelines would be welcome."+ How could Mr. Carey write the above sentence without discovering the error of using two words broadly distinct in their etymology and in their common acceptation, like “ improper” and “displeasing," as synonyms and convertible ternis ! Mr. Carey does not afford any clue, by quotation or reference, to the whereabouts of the censor whom he designates as "principal" and "inconsiderate," but the turn and tendency of the critique may be conceived; and the following extract from The Birmingham Journal of November last, if not the article referred to, must closely resemble it in the nature of the objections adduced :—“Mr. McClise, in his description, declares that the numerous persons introduced, * "Cursory Observations on Certain Inconsiderate Criticisms, respecting Painting and Sculpture, by William Carey."-Analyst, vol. iii., p. 230. + Analyst, p. 240. engage in the act, (the vow of mischief and revenge), according to their characters and temperaments.'... To us it seems that no national temperament could bring together, in willing, or even in tolerating associations, the evil and the good-the splendid and the debased the fierce and the soft-which are here accumulated....The Madonna-like figure who is nourishing her babe, and the girlish, yet intellectual innocence, that gleams in the eyes of many others ;-could they be found in such an assemblage? Or, if the assemblage came to them, could they remain, and preserve undarkened the sunny expression of joy and charity which they display; as if deaf and blind to the passion, the drunkenness, the wild demoralization which surround them." Thus, then, without deserving the charge of misogynical aversion to beautiful women, as "unpleasing," a person may conceive that their introduction in a work of art may involve an "impropriety," even though, as Mr. Carey says, "the entire [scene] be a fiction." I forget whose free translation of Horace's Art of Poetry begins thus: "If that Sir James a human face should draw,' With gelding's mane, and feathers of maccaw, Would you not think the thing exceeding odd ?” "dis Assuredly we should! not because the objects themselves a human countenance, gay plumage, the female bust—are individually pleasing," but because, thus collocated and wanting relation the one to the other, their introduction would be "improper"-unfit. Would a friend of the painter, then, think it sufficient to reply to a criticism on the work-" Ha! your objection is not that these forms are ill drawn or ill coloured; oh no! it is that they are too beautiful, and beautifully painted." But " the entire is a fiction :" so, in fact, are all pictures of historical and moral subjects; for whoever supposed that at any instant the action stood still, while the characters formed themselves into a tableau," for some conveniently placed artist to sketch from? But fictions should be consistent. It is not only the introduction of "lions, tigers, elephants, and boa constrictors,"* as decorations of English landscape, that should be considered as improprieties. Hogarth's Harlot's Progress, and his Industry and Idleness, are fictions, but not therefore-not with any haughty assumption of the "painter's licence"-would their designer have ventured to intro NO. XV., VOL. IV. * Analyst, p. 243. H. |