University of Virginia Library

CORRIGENDA;
OR, THE ERRORS OF “CYPRESS CONCERNING QUAIL.”

Mr. Editor; You of course know the importance of
truth—though you are an editor—and will therefore wish to
see any errors corrected which may have crept into your
pages; I accordingly make a few remarks upon the very good
article on “Quail” in your October number.

The writer proves himself entirely ignorant of ornithology,
by his blunders in nomenclature. Thus, he is writing about
the Perdix virginiana—Virginian partridge—and not about
the Perdix coturnix—European quail.—The first is a true
partridge, belonging to the same subgenus with the European
partridge, viz., Ortyx; whilst the quail belongs to the
subgenus Coturnix. In Pennsylvania and Southward, and in

English books, our bird is called—and correctly—partidge.
To judge from Mr. C.'s remarks upon Coturnix, he believes
the same species to inhabit on both sides of the Atlantic,
which is not the fact. Both these birds differ again, from
the genus Tetrao, to two species of which he refers by their
proper names, viz., T. umbellus—ruffed, grouse—and T.
cupido—pinnated grouse. Though Mr. C. does “not care to
believe every thing the students of Linnæus and Buffon say,”
I think with all his Latin acquirements, he would have some
difficulty in determining to what birds now known to us, certain
names were applied by the Romans; for a reference to
a dictionary will not decide the question, so that there is
nothing gained by finding fault at this point. Mr. C., however,
has not even consulted his dictionary honestly, or mine
is a different edition, and contains the following definitions;
Tetrao, grouse; Perdix, partridge; Coturnix, quail; and
Otis, bustard; and naturalists do not use any of these in a
different sense. That the first is Latin for turkey may be
doubted, as the Romans would have been under the necessity
of visiting America to make their acquaintance.

Wilson, the pioneer of American Ornithology, committed
many errors in nomenclature which were then unavoidable;
but these have been corrected, long since, by Bonaparte, who
wrote a continuation of Wilson's work; so that there is no
excuse for the blunders of any one who writes on this—or
any other—subject, without first making himself acquainted
with it. Mr. C. alludes to Audubon, but I am certain he has
never consulted his works, or Bonaparte's or those of any
modern author since the time of Wilson, or he would not
have made the unwhiskered assertion that “the whole race
of ornithologists call the partridge tetrao. Possibly by partridge
he means grouse. This errour—as the New York

Mirrour would say—reminds me of a somewhat similar, but
more aggravated case; that of an upstart who considered the
vernacular—and proper—name of our noble buttonwood tree
vulgar (!) and knowing no other English name—as plane
tree—called it a sycamore!! He might with equal propriety
have called it a cherry-tree. It is an excellent thing to
“call things by their right names.”

To insure an insertion in a sporting magazine, I must admit
that this letter is witten in sport, and the admission, I
hope, will prevent your correspondent from taking offence
and forcing me to take the field, for the liberty I have taken
with his very well written article.