54 Bibliographical Notices. 



at present chiefly employed on fossil Mammalia), — his extensive ac- 

 quaintance with the works of foreign naturalists, as shown by the 

 numerous references in this publication, — together with several visits 

 undertaken solely from his love of science to the museums on the 

 continent, eminently fit him for the great work here commenced. 

 We use this expression advisedly, for it must not be supposed that 

 we have here merely a compilation ; original descriptions, and mea- 

 surements generally taken from more than one specimen, are in the 

 majority of cases given. The dental and osteological details are 

 described with particular care, and are illustrated by distinct and 

 careful plates : in the precision of these details, we imagine we see 

 the effects of Mr. Waterhouse's long and ardent attachment to en- 

 tomology. Although the work is not a compilation, the author has 

 not neglected any source of information ; and in this first volume, 

 which is confined to the Marsupiata, he is much indebted to Mr. 

 Gould's admirable labours in Australia. Mr. Waterhouse however 

 often differs from Mr. Gould with respect to specific characters, and 

 we rejoice to see no signs of that rage to create new species, so pre- 

 valent amongst zoologists. 



A distinguishing feature in this work is the notice of all fossil 

 species, interpolated in their proper i)laces ; hence, when the whole 

 is completed, we shall have a comprehensive view of the entire class 

 of Mammalia, as far as known ; and the accident of extinction will 

 not remove from the series, as is too often the case in systematic 

 works, allied or intermediate forms. Many curious and original 

 remarks are interspersed on the aflfinities of the various genera and 

 families ; but we find no trace of those fanciful speculations on ana- 

 logies — such as between a mouse's nose and a snipe's beak, or be- 

 tween oxen and poultry — which we fear must have lowered us in the 

 estimation of continental naturalists. In reference to affinities, we 

 must express our regret that the Marsupiata were not ranked, in 

 conformity with Prof. Owen's views, as a sub-class distinct from the 

 placental mammifers. Whether we view classification as a mere 

 contrivance to convey much information by a single word, or as 

 something more than a memoria technica, and as connected with the 

 laws of creation, we cannot doubt that where such important differ- 

 ences in the generative and cerebral systems, as distinguish the 

 Marsupiata from the Placentata, run through two series of animals, 

 they ought to be arranged under heads of equal value. We are not 

 convinced by the ingenious remarks on this subject given at p. 17 ; 

 we cannot admit that numerical differences in the number of the 

 species in two groups, or their geographical distribution, or a some- 

 what hypothetical statement that the amount of difference is greatest 

 amongst the lower forms in each class, ought to be taken into ac- 

 count in a system of classification ; we believe that our best botanists, 

 who may well serve as guides on this subject, eschew such considera- 

 tions, and confine themselves to the strict rule of difference in struc- 

 ture. Should this rule be disregarded, some naturalists would admit 

 habits (useful as they undoubtedly are) — some would admit analo- 

 gies, or, as well expressed by Lamarck, adaptations in widely different 



