qfM'Leay, Swainson, Vigors, Sfc. 133 



thor's own words in explanation of it. u As it is manifest," 

 says Mr. Swainson, " that every group, according to its mag- 

 nitude, will exhibit more or less variety in its contents, the 

 first question which suggests itself is, Are these varieties 

 regulated by any definite number? and is that number so 

 constant in all groups, as have been properly investigated, as 

 to sanction the belief that it is universal? The answer is in 

 the affirmative. Every group, whatever may be its rank, or 

 value (that is, its size or denomination), contains, according 

 to our theory, three other primary groups, whose affinities 

 are also circular. One of these is called the typical, the 

 other the sub-typical, and the third the aberrant, group. This 

 latter is so much more diversified in its contents than the 

 other two, that many naturalists reckon Jive groups in all ; 

 the number Jive being made out by dividing the aberrant 

 group into three, instead of considering it as only one" (See 

 Geogr, and Classificat. of Animals, par. 278. p. 226, 227.) 



It will be evident to most of our readers, that this proposi- 

 tion is the most difficult (if there can be more difficulty in 

 one than the rest, where there is an impossibility in all) 

 to substantiate. Hence we find one naturalist, or rather 

 systematist (the terms are far from being synonymous), pub- 

 lishing his belief that the "natural" number is three; a 

 second, that it is four; a third, five; while a fourth feels cer- 

 tain that it is seven ! 



We have given Mr. Swainson's opinion above : it will now 

 be proper to see in what manner he applies his theory, and 

 the success he has met with in its application ; that is, in at- 

 tempting to perform, according to his own phraseology, an 

 " utter impossibility." 



He first, following Locke, divides every thing which the 

 mind of man can conceive into cogitative, or incogitative, or, 

 in other words, into intelligent, or unintelligent. 



A deficiency of one division is here observable ; that is, he 

 has only two, while, according to his theory, he ought to have 

 three (our readers must perfectly understand, that we con- 

 sider it highly foolish attempting to arrange any thing meta- 

 physical under any particular system). Mr. Swainson refers 

 to this deficiency in a note on the same page, and actually, for 

 this reason, doubts the correctness of the celebrated Locke's 

 views. Just because those views do not conform to a fanciful 

 system, to rules laid down beforehand for natural groups, they 

 must be incorrect : he, however, is not able to discover a third 

 division, and is therefore unwillingly obliged to conform to 

 Locke. 



Intelligent beings he divides into, first, God ; second, spi- 



L 3 



