forgotten her real name and knew her only under that of an imitation of
her diminutive. The transition from "Bitha" to "Bertha" is easy, but how
is the perplexed genealogist to ascertain the original when he has only
the records for his guide?

Such illustrations might be multiplied almost indefinitely, but those
already given are enough to show what an infinite amount of trouble has
come and must still come from their continued usage. They also serve
well to show with how much care and watchfulness the historian must
pursue his work; how constantly he must be upon his guard, and how
closely and critically he must scrutinize the names that pass under his
eye.

Nor was this custom of nicknames confined to the daughters of the
family, but the boys, also, were among its subjects, perhaps in not so
great a variety, yet very general. Among the more common we only need
mention such as Bill, Ned, Jack, and Frank, to illustrate this. Nor were
there wanting among the masculine nicknames those whose derivations seem
very remote and far-fetched, as "El" for "Alphus;" "Hal" for "Henry;"
"Jot" for "Jonathan;" "Seph" for "Josephus;" "Nol" for "Oliver;" "Dick"
for "Richard," and a multitude of others equally well known.

The instances named are old and have been in general use so long that
those who are called upon to deal with them are upon their guard and not
likely to be led astray by them, but the class of pet names, now, for a
few years in use, will necessarily be more misleading because they are
new, and in many cases very blind; in many instances the same nickname
being used to represent perhaps a dozen different proper names, so that
it is impossible to tell, from the nickname, what the real name is.
Among the most annoying of this class are those that not only represent