of certain Birds of Cuba. 23 



skull, teeth, fingers, nails, organs of generation, and pectoral 

 mammae. It is the only order of Mammalia that has not been 

 pointed out and named by Aristotle* ; but as he has subdivided 

 it, and shown the affinities of the principal groups composing it, 

 it is easy to imagine, that if he could have sacrificed the natural 

 pride of philosophy so much as to class himself with any inferior 

 species of animal, he would have named this group also. Ray 

 may be said to have perceived it, from calling the group ^Xa- 

 rvmv)(jx,, which evidently includes Man ; but by ^ome mistake, he 

 has forgotten to make any mention of Man in his system. This 

 order was aptly termed by Linnaeus Primates ; and the natural 

 construction of it was the most original as well as important fact 

 that he ever demonstrated in the natural history of Mammalia. 

 Another natural group which all zoologists have perceived, 



* Notwithstanding the number of ancient and modern writers who have employed 

 themselves in commenting on the Hutoria Animalium of Aristotle, I am not aware 

 that any tabular view has ever been given of this naturalist's arrangement of Mam- 

 malia and Birds, unless that given by ^han, lib. xi. c.37. ed. Schneid. be so considered. 

 This is owing to Aristotle's commentators, with the exception of Ray, Scaliger, and 

 Schneider, being all ignorant of the science. As for ^lian, he was not merely igno- 

 rant of natural history, but, moreover, without capacity to understand it, as appears 

 from the manner in which he filled the common-place book, which has come down to 

 us. Aristotle's work is, on the other hand, invaluable. The astonishing talent he 

 possessed for observation and generalization, not merely appears by comparing him 

 with his followers among the ancients, but also when he is compared with the most 

 profound of modern zoologists. The following tabular view of his arrangement, where 

 his own nomenclature is given, will best show the truth of this opinion. How far he 

 has been improved upon either in arrangement or nomenclature, may thus be easily 

 understood. The Table ought in particular to be compared with that given, p. 60 of 

 the Synopsis of our great countryman Ray, who perhaps was the most original zoolo- 

 gist, after Aristotle, that ever existed. In mentioning this subject, I do not refer to 

 Pliny, because the few passages of his entertaining work that relate to arrangement 

 are borrowed from Aristotle; and not having been understood in the original, are 

 miserably deteriorated in the translation. Natural History is, perhaps, the last of all 

 sciences that a mere compiler ought to meddle with. 



Si/stema 



y 



