288 SIR, CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editor of The Analyst. In answer to a query by a correspondent, (vol. ii., p. 426), I should be inclined to think that he is right, when he supposes the first-mentioned bird to be the Red Lark, (Alauda rubra). With the most diligent search, I have never been able to find this bird on the borders of Staffordshire, &c., and the species is affirmed, by some authors, to be merely a variety of the Sky Lark, (Alauda arvensis, Liu.; A. vulgaris, of Willughby.) This point must be left to future investigation: and I must here express my regret, that your correspondent did not take some means to secure the birds, their nest, and eggs. He might thus, perhaps, have settled a very interesting question in ornithology. The second bird is, undoubtedly, the Yellow Wagtail, (Motacilla flava, Willughby.) Your correspondent thinks that the bird he describes is in the 66 'Lark family:" but there is no such family in ornithology. The Lark genus, (Alauda,) is in the Finch family, (Fringillida,) and the Wagtail genus, (Motacilla,) is in the Warbler family, (Sylviada.) He, also, says, that it is much smaller than the Yellow Wagtail; but, by Yellow Wagtail, I suppose he means the Gray Wagtail, (Motacilla cinerea, Aldrovand,) which, when in its best plumage, is chiefly yellow. If I am correct in this supposition, his describing the tail of the newly-observed bird to be much"shorter than that of the Yellow (Gray) Wagtail" is accounted for; the real Yellow Wagtail (Motacilla flava,* Willughby) having a very short tail, compared with the Pied Wagtail (Motacilla maculosa, W.; M. alba, of Willughby) or the Gray Wagtail. Another circumstance confirms me in the supposition that this bird is the Yellow Wagtail; it is described as frequenting fields and shunning the water. On this account, the Yellow Wagtail is frequently called the Field Wagtail and the Oatear Wagtail, and the French call it " Bergeronnette printaniere." Bergeronnette is, literally, cattle attender. The true Wagtails are called Hochequeue. On account of its habits, the length of its hind claw, and the shortness of its tail, this bird has been separated from the other Wagtails, (Motacilla,) under the name Budytes. It thus forms a link between the Wagtails and the Pipits, (Anthus.) Should your correspondent wish to obtain information on any British Bird, I should advise him to procure Mudie's Feathered Tribes, in which he will find full and copious notices of our featherd guests detailed in a remarkably fascinating style; and it is indeed, as Loudon remarks, indispensable to every studier and every lover of the Birds of Britain. S. D. W. * The names Motacilla alba, M. flava, and many others, were not, as is generally represented, given by Linnæus; but by the illustrious Willughby, who died 1672. SIR, To the Editor of The Analyst. IN your last number, page 26, are some observations on the improvement of ornithological nomenclature, by S. D. W., and upon which I would beg to remark for a few moments. If I understand your correspondent aright, his remarks have as much reference to the popular as to the scientific names, and it is to the former that I will confine my observations. I am one of the unlearned, and am, therefore, desirous that Natural History should be "made easy to the meanest capacity." I see no good reason whatever why natural science is to be circumscribed by learned walls, over which the vulgar cannot peep, stretch themselves upon tip-toe as much as they please: I can see no good reason why the name Brimstone Butterfly will not answer every general purpose fully as well as Gonepteryx rhamni. It is to be presumed that those who are latinists also understand English; and, therefore, when I describe an object by a name which every Englishman can understand, and which will convey to his mind a clear idea of the object to which I allude, I run no risk of misleading the scholar ; for I presume his knowledge of Latin has not deprived him of his knowledge of English. Frequent changes in the nomenclature of natural productions is highly to be deprecated. Scientific names are hard to be acquired by the unlearned; and if this be an obstacle in his way in running the race of science, how vastly are his difficulties enhanced by the endless changes which are now so fashionable. It would almost appear that the object of science, in the present day, was to attend wholly to names, they are so everlastingly changing; and thus the student-particularly the unlearned student-is for ever groping his dark and dubious way, always doubtful of the security of his footing, and frequently compelled to unlearn to day what he learnt yesterday. I would offer my remarks (very unworthy, perhaps, they may be) in the spirit of kindness and good-will-in the spirit of a naturalist. I would, then, ask S. D. W., why give so many names to the Owl family?-(Strigida). In his list he gives us eleven Owls, with the word Owl attached to but one of them. Why not let the term Owl be the English family name, and attach some distinctive name to each separate species? This involves another difficulty-one of his Owls he calls a Snowflake: now, inasmuch as there is already a Snowfleck generally (perhaps universally) known by that namethough S. D. W. has changed the name to Snowy Longspur-is there not a great chance of the novice being misled by the same name, or names, so nearly similar, being attached to birds so very dissimilar? It will probably be answered, that, as the term Snowfleck is now discarded, the objection will not hold good: true, it will not hold good, abstractedly considered; but as it has been in such general use, and for such a long period, it strikes me very forcibly that the great similarity in the name now used for one bird, to January, 1836.-VOL. III., NO. XIV. U that which has been used for another, ought to be avoided; because it may, possibly, lead to confusion. Besides this, I really think that some reason ought to be assigned for such radical changes of nomenclature as S. D. W. proposes. I want to know the grounds upon which my assent is required to such changes. Nothing can be more desirable than to have a general and universally-acknowledged nomenclature; but I want some substantial reason assigned for the adoption of such names as Whitebreasted Nightling, Sparrow Nightling, &c., and for such uncouth designations as Heath Madge, and Longeared Madge, before I consent to use them. Leaving the Owl, we will proceed to other birds, without any regard to classification. I find, in the list, White Kite, Fern Nightjar, Minnow Kingfisher, Rivulet Dipper, and a variety of other names of the same kind, and which, I think, have a direct tendency to mislead and to confuse the student. If I see the names Kite, Nightjar, Kingfisher, and Dipper, I clearly understand what is meant; but when I see the name of White Kite, I am led to suppose that there must be another Kite, of some other colour. The same, also, of the others-Minnow Kingfisher would lead me to expect that there were other British Kingfishers, who preyed on other fish, and were distinguished by the name of the fish on which they fed; and I should be further led to imagine that the Minnow Kingfisher fed upon minnows, and upon no other fish. The like, again, of the Dipper-by the distinctive epithet Rivulet, attached to it by S. D. W., I am naturally led to suppose that there are other British Dippers; and I should expect to find them named, in contradistinction to S. D. W.'s, River Dipper, Lake Dipper, or Sea Dipper, as the case might be. These remarks, I hope, S. D. W. will take in good part, as they are meant; anxiety for the establishment of an undisputed and fixed nomenclature has suggested them: for nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see such a nomenclature adopted, not only in ornithology, but also in every department of natural science. Perhaps, you will allow me to say one word, in conclusion, in further elucidation of the subject, respecting the nomenclature of British Butterflies. The genus Melitæa and Argynnis, are both called Fritillaries. Why? If the one genus be chequered, the other certainly is not-it is spotted: and besides, I would have names appropriated to them that would better designate their habits; and their habits are exceedingly dissimilar. Again, with respect to the Blue Butterflies-I can understand the common blue, the pale blue, the azure blue, the silver-studded blue, &c.; here I can distinctly understand the distinctive differences meant to be noted: but when I find other blues denominated Arguses, I am at fault, for the one class is quite as much eyed as the other. These are the ideas which spontaneously sprung up in my mind, in reading S. D. W.'s paper. I submit them to his consideration, applauding his object, and wishing him abundant success. CARLO CYFFIN. December, 1835. SIR, To the Editor of The Analyst. "I will description the matter to you, If y f you po As you have admitted the animadversions of a Birmingham correspondent of The Analyst on an insignificant little work which I lately published, I feel assured you will not refuse to insert the following reply. My Guide to an arrangement of British Birds, written in great haste, among other numerous avocations, was printed, primarily, for my own convenience, and, secondarily, for the benefit of other collectors of British birds; and I expressly stated, in the preface, that I hoped all due allowance would be made for any typographical or other errors. With regard to the arrangement, I adopted that which I consider still to be the best; and I distinctly pointed out that if a collector were displeased with the relative sition of any or every individual bird in the catalogue, he had nothing to do but to change, " ad libitum," the place of each and every case to which the names were attached. But, to the gravamen of the charge-the strictures of your correspondent arrange themselves under two heads the first embracing the faults of the author, the second impugning the accuracy of the printer. The one a class of faults that may be said to exist, arλws, in the work itself, the other to arise, xarà σaμßeßxos. On both of these " I will try conclusions" with him. He asks me on whose authority I admit the Picus medius as a distinct species ?-simply then on that of Linnæus, Temminck, Bewick, etc. Secondly, why do I admit the Emberiza chlorocephala as such ?—I do so because Gmelin, Linnæus, Lewin, Brown, Montagu, and Fleming, have described it as a species; and I include it among the British birds, Bewick alone having mentioned five instances of its occurring in England. As, however, this erudite ornithologist seems inclined to consider this bird as merely a variety of Emberiza citrinella (differing only, "si rite recorder," about the head and neck, it may just be as well to set him right by a comparison of the descriptions of the two species, as given by Bewick. Having done so, others may form their own opinions respecting the matter. Emberiza citrinella. Length somewhat above six inches. Bill dusky; eyes hazel; the prevailing colour is yellow, mixed with brown of various shades; the crown of the head, in general, is bright yellow, more or less variegated with brown; the cheeks, throat, and lower part of the belly, pure yellow; the breast reddish, and the sides dashed with streaks of the same; the hinder part of the neck and back are greenish Emberiza chlorocephala. It is about the size of the Yellow Bunting. The bill dark reddish; the head and neck, as far as the breast, pale olive green, slightly powdered with pale ash grey. The chin and throat are pale greenish yellow; a streak of the same colour falls down from the corners of the lower mandibles, before the auriculars. The breast and belly are of a light rusty chestnut; the vent and under coverts olive; the greater quills dusky, edged with pale yellow; lesser quills and scapulars dark brown, edged with grey; the tail is dusky, and a little forked, the feathers edged with light brown, the outermost with white; the legs yellowish brown. It is somewhat difficult to describe a species of bird of which no two are to be found perfectly similar, but its specific characters are plain, and cannot easily be mistaken. The colours of the female are less bright than those of the male, with very little yellow about the head. of the tail, the same, but of a paler and more dingy cast; the feathers on the back, scapulars, and greater and lesser coverts, are very dark brown in the middle, but the rest of the webs are much lighter, and of a rusty brown; the lower part of the back and upper coverts of the tail are also of the latter colour; the quills and tail feathers are deepish brown, the former edged with light brown; middle tail feathers the same; the rest plain, and the outer feathers are somewhat longer than the middle The legs reddish yellow. ones. Thirdly, on whose authority do I admit Falco lithofalco as different from Falco æsalon ?-1 reply, on that of Linnæus, Buffon, Bewick, etc., etc.-These, then, are the three offences of commission with which I am charged; and for three others of omission he chooses to consider the work rendered null and void, as to its utility, otherwise, as he himself allows, a very great help to the ornithologist. "The very sum and substance of my wrong hath this offence, no more." Now, with regard to the three former objections, I think it a sufficient answer to observe that, even allowing them-which I do not-not to be species, still, as they certainly are so considered by many, it is evidently better to supply the names for their accommodation; and those who entertain a different opinion have nothing to do but to set aside the names of those three species. It may be asked why, on this ground, I have not admitted the names of the other three species ? (one of these, by the bye, the fork-tailed kite, is given, by Bewick, as a synonym of the Glead, but I will not affect to misunderstand what is meant) -I beg, in answer, to refer your correspondent to the date of my preface, before which my Guide was composed, and also, at the same time, to ask him when, by what authors, these birds have been described, how often, and at what places, they have occurred in Britain. At the same time, he is informed that though I fully expect that one (the Regulus) or more of them will not remain considered as good species, yet, for the reason adduced above, I have added them in a supplement, containing, also, the emended errata to the Guide, which will accompany it gratis, and any person may obtain it by applying to Mr. Longman, through his bookseller. Having thus dismissed the charges which concern myself, I now come to those so "rife and rank" of the printer; some of which I take upon myself to be answerable for, as I am chargeable with them, if faults they be. Whole snipe your correspondent imagines to be a misprint (for large snipe, as I suppose); but, whatever its market name may be, it is by this name that the bird is known to sportsmen from Lincolnshire to Hampshire; and, therefore, I see no reason, at present, to alter it. The nice ear of this learned critic is offended, in the next place, |