legged partridge-Tetrao coturnix, the quail, &c., &c., ad infinitum. So that Cypress is, in fact, entirely in error with regard to the alleged misapplication of both terms; and is clearly wrong in his Latinity. If, moreover, there be an error in the name perdix virginiana, it is attributable, not to the whole race of naturalists, but merely to those naturalists who have created a new name for a new bird.

Now in my humble opinion, Corrector is no less in erroras I shall endeavor to show-in his corrigenda. "Thus"he says "he-Cypress-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, viz. ortyx; whilst the quail belongs to the subgenus coturnix. In Pennsylvania and southward, and in English books, our bird is called-and correctly-partridge."

Now the gist of all this amounts to a simple assertion that the American bird belongs to a different genus from the English quail, and is a partridge. Now this I am satisfied is an error. From what book your correspondent H. draws his nomenclature I have not been able to discover; but from whatsoever, it is not a distinct, or, in my opinion, correct one. In no book that I have or can refer to, is the European partridge-English partridge ?-classed as ortyx-nor the quail as Perdix-but both are generally classed as Tetrao, with the definitions perdix and coturnix. Such is the nomenclature of Linnæus, Buffon, and Bewick-the last decidedly the best British ornithologist. The subgeneric nomenclatures alluded to by your correspondent H. have no foundation in classical propriety, ortyx being merely the Greek-opru-and coturnix the Latin for Quail. So that as an appellation intended to convey a distinction, the new term ortyx, as opposed to coVOL. I.-11

turnix, is absurdly ill chosen-being a distinction without a difference!--With regard to habits, the American bird is infinitely more similar to the quail than to the partridge; whether English or red-legged. The partridge is a bolder bird, stronger, and freer of wing, less apt to skulk, or run before dogs—and never perching, even on rails, much less on trees or bushes-and rarely flying to any woody covert. The European quail skulks, and runs, almost precisely as its American congener, flies, immediately on its being roused, to the nearest brake or thicket, and is with great difficulty flushed a second time; it likewise occasionally, though not often, perches on low shrubs. It is, moreover, migratory, which the partridge is not, and which the American quail most certainly is, as I can testify from my own observation; while in size, general appearance, character of plumage, and cry, it is much more nearly connected with the English quail, than with any partridge existing.

In my opinion, therefore-and I am satisfied that facts will bear out my opinion-the Perdix Virginiana is not a true partridge—and is not correctly termed a partridge in Pennsylvania and southward-any more than the ruffed grouse-Tetrao umbellus-is correctly termed a pheasant in the same regions. The English books, to which your correspondent refers, are probably books of travels, using the term in describing the bird which the authors have heard applied to it here -for we are aware of no English ornithological work of authority describing the birds of America. As to whether the nomenclature Perdix virginiana be correctly deduced or not, is a different question; and bears nothing on the point at issue. I should rather prefer myself to designate it as Tetrao coturnix; varietas Virginiana; or more simply Tetrao Virginianus; but so that it is made evident what bird is meant,

and to what genus, and species, and order, it belongs, the mere name matters little.

Of the Partridge there are but two varieties in Europe-or, as far as known, in Africa-the grey, or English, and the redlegged; and both these are by Linnæus styled Tetrao-the one perdix, the other rufus. The term ortyx is not used by him, and iss-as I have shown above-an absurd term to use in opposition to coturnix, as distinguishing partridge from quail.

The truth is, that in the common phraseology of this country the nomenclature of game has been sadly confused; by the fact that the original settlers named the birds they found here, after fancied similitudes to the birds they remembered at home; and that their errors have been handed down from age to age, till they are now almost ineradicable. Hence the quail is called a partridge in the South-while no less erroneously the ruffed grouse is termed a partridge in the Eastern and Middle, and a pheasant in the Southern States; and will so be termed till the world's end by all but book-read ornithologists, students of Buffon and Linnæus, at whom J. Cypress, Jr.-commend me to him when you meet-sneers so unmercifully and, me judice, unwisely.

Thine to command,

FRANK FORESTER.

To the Editor of the "American Turf Register and Sporting Magazine."–

MY DEAR TURF: I perceive that some, doubtless, very clever gentleman has been doing the amiable for me, in the Irish fashion, in the sod you have just cut out and registered.

He is pleased to assure you that the unpretending author of a few observations concerning quail, copied by your Magazine from a publication made some years since, “proves himself entirely ignorant of ornithology, by his bluuders in nomenclature." He sneers at "all his Latin acquirements," and charges that "he has not even consulted his dictionary honestly.” But, worse and worse, he insists that although Mr. C. alludes to Audubon, yet that he―the aforesaid clever gentleman-is certain that Mr. C. " has never consulted his works, nor Bonaparte's nor 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.'" Then follows some fun about the New-York Mirror, which I do not understand. General Morris can take care of himself. Perhaps he had better order out one of his regiments, and plant a park of artillery before his office, for his better defence. Though, on second thought, the admission made in the last paragraph of the "Corrigenda" we are referring to, that the "article is written in sport," may induce composure and confidence among the office imps, and there will be no necessity for extra Cannon.

was

But as to myself. Permit me to defend variously. I desire to take issue on part of the charges against me. I want to confess in part, and let part go by default; or give a cognovit for the amount of damages. I admit that my assertion "unwhiskered." I admit it with grief. I ask leave to amend—as the lawyers say " on payment of costs;" and I will presently re-present the assertion full "whiskered," if my learned commentator will have it so, with the mature hair of judgment of ornithologists who, now, have no more books to sell.

Next as to my "utter ignorance of ornithology," and my

"blunders in nomenclature," I plead not guilty. I, at the same time, admit that I am no professed bird-philosopher, nor herald of the honors, orders, distinctions, and relationships of the feathered race, But I have long known many of them, intimately, and loved them with the love of a sportsman, and a lover of nature; and have read the history of them and their kin in many books, and have talked to them, and heard them talk, and I know what names to call them, and if I "blunder," I know where to go to get corrected; and if I hear some other devotee—even though he be a master-miscall them, I have assurance enough, when I can prove it, to point out his kakology. I am no carpenter, yet I live in a house. I have written no book, yet I have read some, and consulted many. Shall I be enjoined from the expression of my opinion as to the construction of either, because I have not builded nor written? I shall insist, on this head, under my forthcoming proofs, that I am not "utterly ignorant," &c., but, at the very furthest, only very considerably "ignorant.'

Next, as to the insinuation about my "Latin acquirements," which, I suppose, of course is intended to signify want of them; if it will do Mr. H. any good, he may take judgment against me by default.

Touching the last grave charge, that I have not consulted" either Audubon or Bonaparte, I am bound to take issue; for this accusation, if true, involves me in the crime of a falsehood—a falsehood that could have been concocted only by the most barefaced affectation of knowledge, and the most extraordinary good luck of a rambling fancy. I will consider this matter further, presently; when I will also endeavor to prove that I have consulted my "dictionary honestly." Mean time, I will persist in declaring that although the hard necessities of impecuniosity have denied to me the delight of en