ever, I earnestly entreat all those who take any interest in the improvement of the human mind, to turn to the first volume of the "Phrenological Journal," page 505, where the original article will be found. The small progress made, in this instance, by the boy under his first course of training, was clearly referable to the want of tact in those who ought to have been his instructors. And had it not been for the new lights afforded by phrenology, they would have proceeded in the same track of irksome labour to themselves, and unutterable anguish to the pupil. An individual who has been entrusted for many years with the education of a large family, on being asked by a lady whether he was a believer in phrenology, after much hesitation answered"Why-why, Madam, I'm wavering." By his expression at the time it was easy to see that he was ashamed to confess the plain truth that he was opposed to phrenology. There are some minds naturally so warped and contracted that they cannot see phrenology in any other light than as a lump and bump" affair; to which class the person above alluded to belongs. 66 The following sound advice, given to teachers in general, is extracted from an excellent little work on education, by Mr. Abbot, whose views on this subject are perhaps as perfect as views on education possibly can be without the illuminating influence of phrenology;-"Never get out of patience with dulness. Perhaps I ought to say never get out of patience with anything. That would perhaps be the wisest rule. But above all things, remember that dulness and stupidity-and you will certainly find them in every school-are the very last things to be out of patience with. the Creator has so formed the mind of a boy, that he must go through life with difficulty, impeded by obstructions which others do not feel, and depressed by discouragements which others never know, his lot is surely hard enough without your adding to it sareasm and reproach."* If How very common it is to hear parents and masters, when a pupil is backward, exclaim and repeat with great emphasis, "There must be the will-nothing to be done without the will." True, very true; but how is the will to be got. It seems to me that the asserters of these profound truths expect their pupils, by some magic, to become anxious to acquire that which is naturally distasteful and repulsive to them-or perhaps they think that the frequency of the repetition will impart this indispensable "will." However that may be, it is certain that they expect the pupil of his own accord to gain this much desired will, and, like all those who found their expectations on false grounds, they always have been and always will be disappointed. Those who are naturally idle are no more to be reproached for that failing, than the studious are to be lauded for their diligence. All that the master has to do is to *The "Teacher," p. 124. increase the power and activity of such organs as are naturally sluggish, to bridle and repress those which are naturally too strong and active, and to direct such as are likely to go astray. But there is certainly no room for praise when a pupil has a relish for his studies, any more than if he has a relish for an apple tart; the studies are pursued with avidity for the same reason that the apple tart is swallowed with satisfaction-namely, the pleasure which it yields. In the same way, if a person is very obliging and compassionate, his acts of benevolence do not properly admit of praise, inasmuch as they are rewarded by an innate pleasure arising from the very act of doing good implanted in him by his Creator; and what is there to praise in the act of procuring for oneself pleasure? That delightful ornithologist, Wilson, seems to have understood this; speaking of the motives which induced him to undergo the perils, toils, and hardships, of his romantic ornithological tours in North America, aud to undertake an extensive and laborious work on ornithology, he says-"Biassed, almost from infancy, by a fondness for birds, and little else than an enthusiast in my researches after them, I feel happy to communicate my observations to others, probably from the mere principle of self-gratification, that source of so many even of our most virtuous actions."-Introduction to " American Ornithology." If instead of saying so many, he had said all, he would have spoken the whole truth. The benefit conferred on the human race by the dissemination of phrenology, is like the refreshing and reviving influence of some great river overflowing and irrigating the surrounding meadows, which were beginning to become parched, like the mighty Nile dispersing its enriching favors far and wide. Its influence is as varied as its scope is extensive, and in promoting all the advantages which have sprung and will continue to spring from it till time shall be no more, none will have contributed more than the third and greatest triumvirate-GALL, SPURZHEIM, and COMBE. June, 1835. S. D. W. TO FRIENDSHIP. IMMORTAL Friendship, loveliest of those ties J. P. ON THE NOMENCLATURE OF BIRDS.* I was by no means surprised to perceive in the last number of the Analyst, that my proposed alteration (though a very slight one) in the English nomenclature of birds, was considered objectionable by your correspondent. I am well acquainted with the views of Mr. Strickland on this subject from his paper in the Magazine of Natural History, which, in my opinion, does not contain one sound argument in favor of his statements. On this occasion I shall confine my remarks to his paper in the Analyst. are Mr. Strickland says, at p. 317, that the English names of birds consecrated by usage as much as any other part of the English language,† and consequently when we speak of an Hedge Sparrow we are much more likely to be understood than if we call it an Hedge Dunnock, though I willingly admit that it is unscientific to give the same generic name to an accentor and a passer." I am sorry that Mr. S. belongs to that unimproving class who consider that "whatever is, is right." If every one were of the same opinion, the world would never advance. As to the name Hedge Sparrow being better known than Hedge Dunnock (although the bird goes by the latter name in many parts of England), that is possible enough; but it is the business of the scientific Naturalist to reform these abuses, and to substitute proper names for those which are erroneous and unscientific. Why Natural History should be doomed to possess so loose and unscientific a nomenclature, while that of all other sciences is so exact and precise, I am really at a loss to determine. I remember that when I first entered on the study of Ornithology, I actually supposed the "Bull Finch" to be a true Finch; and is this to be wondered at? I had heard that every bird had a generic and a specific name, and, therefore, it was quite natural to conclude that the generic name indicated the genus to which the species belonged; how grievously I was mistaken, the works of any modern Ornithologist will amply testify. The number of naturalists (field naturalists especially) is now so great, that were the proper English names given in all standard ornithological works, the multitude would insensibly follow in the steps of the professor. For the amateur naturalist would use in common conversation such names as they had been accustomed to meet with in books. Thus the name Gallinule has now almost wholly superseded the absurd name "Water Hen." The naturalist should direct the multitude, and not the multitude the naturalist. If Mr. S. objects to my name Hedge Dunnock, what will he say to that used by Selby, in his masterly work the Illustrations of British Ornithology; in both first and second editions that excellent naturalist calls this bird the Hedge Accentor. Now, although there is no scientific error in this name, yet it is, in my opinion, too pedantic for common use. Selby seems rather partial to using latin names in English; thus he has, the Egyptian Neophron (Neophron percnopterus), the Swallow-tailed Elanus (Elanus furcatus) the Goldcrested Regulus (Regulus auricapillus), the * In answer to Hugh E. Strickland, Esq. Vol. II. p. 317. A gradual change is constantly effecting in every part of the English language, This is a general opinion amongst the vulgar. See Johnson's Dict. for a definition of "finch." July, 1835.-vVOL, II. NO, XII. 31 Hedge and Alpine Accentors (Accentor modularis and A. Alpinus), &c. It is evident enough that there is no essential objection to any of these names; still, however, it is probable that the generality of those who read works on natural history, would not adopt them. But who can object to the name Whiteheaded Forktail (Elanus leucocephalus, mihi), or to the beautiful and expressive name Kinglet (Regulus)? Even supposing that the science of Ornithology did "not suffer by this incorrect (and Mr. S. allows it to be incorrect) application of English names," yet the difficulties thus placed, unnecessarily, in the way of the student, would sufficiently warrant the change of the names. Anything loose or unscientific is totally inadmissible in science. Science is surely sufficiently abstruse in itself, without heaping upon it inaccuracies which render it ten times more difficult! But to proceed. Mr. S. observes that "the first and most important requisite in scientific terms is that they should be universally adopted, and hence the fathers of Natural History have wisely employed the Latin language as the source of their nomenclature, being generally understood by the learned among all civilized nations." It is certainly very important that scientific terms should be generally adopted, but before names become well known, the newly proposed one might be followed by the old and Linnæan name. It is essential to the improvement of Ornithological science that names -Latin as well as English-be frequently altered; for when a new system is proposed-and there are now few who advocate the Linnæan system-new names must necessarily be introduced, and as new systems are always propounded in works which it is essential for every scientific Naturalist to possess, there would be no fear of the names not being sufficiently known. I by no means advocate-as Mr. S., seems to think-the substituting English for Latin names, but merely wish to effect a reform in the former, which has long been most grievously wanted. To say that "the science of Ornithology does not suffer by this incorrect application of English names," is evidently erroneous, and requires no comment from me. Mr. S. also speaks of " changes which are certain not to be universally adopted."* One or two instances will prove the groundlessness of this assertion; Cinclus aquaticus was formerly invariably called the Water Ouzel, and the Pipits (Anthus) were termed Larks or Titlarks; now, however, the former receives the name of Dipper, and the latter of Pipit, in Ornithological Works; and rarely do we now meet with the old names in the Natural History periodicals of the day. It is unnecessary to multiply instances. The whole use of a system is, to facilitate the acquirement of Natural History; consequently this system should be as simple, and as free from errors as possible, in every part. This is a proposition which, I think, no one will deny, and I consider that the slight alteration in English nomenclature, proposed by me in a former number, greatly conduces to this important end. If I wished the science to remain stationary, then indeed I should say, leave the names as they are. Temminck and Stephens, as stated in a former paper, are amongst those Naturalists who have paid most attention to this subject, and I have no doubt but that the generally correct nomenclature of the “ General *Happily for the cause of science, our Ornithologists are not of the same opinion as Mr. S. Thus Mudie gives the name Hedge Warbler to the Pettichaps; the translator of Bechstein's Cage Birds uses the name Dunnock; and Selby introduces the following new names :-Longbeak (Macroramphus), Lobefoot (Lobipes), Swiftfoot (Cursorius), Thicknee (Edicnemus), Hareld (Harelda), Garrot (Clangula), &c. &c. &c. Zoology" has greatly improved the English nomenclature of birds. Whatever names are adopted in standard Ornithological Works will of course be used by amateur Naturalists, and finally by the public. Selby effected several good alterations in English nomenclature, but he seemed to be labouring under the erroneous impression that giving proper names would render his " Illustrations" unpopular. 66 Leaving this subject to the consideration of your readers, let us just glance at an article on Vernacular and Scientific Ornithological Nomenclature," at p. 305. Not only are the principles inculcated in this paper sound, but they are carried into practice in a manner which has never before been equalled. The names there proposed are excellent, and especially that of the Caprimulgus Europeus of Linnæus. Your correspondent proposes to name it the Fern Nightjar (Vociferator melolontha.) This name is infinitely preferable to my name, V. Europaus, which, besides being rather a vague and inexpressive specific name, is erroneous, as there is another European species, the Rednecked Nightjar (V. ruficollis, mihi; Caprimulgus ruficollis, Temm.) The generic name of Linnæus and other authors was, however, what I most objected to. These remarks having already extended to a greater length than I originally intended, I here close my paper. Foston Hall, Derbyshire, June 4, 1835. NEVILLE WOOD. FINE ARTS. BY WILLIAM CAREY. THE second Worcester Exhibition of the works of modern artists opened on Monday, the 15th of June, at the Athenæum. The number of paintings, drawings, and sculpture, is 228, of which only four are of the class last mentioned. There are twenty-six London exhibitors, who have contributed sixty-nine pictures and drawings. The twenty-six Worcester candidates for public approbation have sent 104 of their performances; four Birmingham exhibitors have six pictures; Pershore, Leamington, and Cheltenham have added eight from three artists; Bewdley eight, from a lady's easel; Derby two, from one painter; an Edinburgh professor one, and a foreign artist four, from France. The show is highly to the honour of British genius, and there are, altogether, fewer inferiorities than last year. It is true Lord Northwick has not lent his powerful aid. There is no production from the masterly hand of Stanfield; no work of Roberts, the first painter of architectural views in Europe; nor is there anything from the inspired pencil of Etty, three artists whose admirable specimens, with Frazer's Antiquary and Teniers in his painting-room, constituted a most attractive feature in last year's exhibition. But then the works of Danby and M'Clise, two professional giants, who did not contribute last year, are a tower of strength in this exhibition. There is also a new and charming auxiliary in Charles Landseer. Fewer portraits and pictures of horses, dogs, and dead game are in this catalogue than are usual in the London and provincial exhibitions. I am grieved to see there are only five which can be classed under the head of history. A taste for landscape takes the lead; but it is a passion for local views, in which the British artists |