in the '•^ Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles,^^ 113 



Psiitacula, names without any characters, or at least such charac- 

 ters as are adequate to scientifick purposes, stand in direct con- 

 tradiction to the assertion of M. Desmarest. 



M. BufFon succeeds. No man will venture at this day to dis- 

 pute the claims of this pre-eminent naturalist to the highest rank 

 in science: but no man, I conceive, will be hazardous enough to 

 attribute those claims to his views of arrangement. In fact he 

 professedly set his face against all systematick forms ; and when 

 he was obliged to institute some necessary subdivisions for the 

 sake of perspicuity, he founded them upon the most inconse- 

 quential characters, such as colour, locality, &c. What for in- 

 stance are his subdivisions of the Parrots ? + I shall select an 

 example as quoted in the Article itself before us, the writer of 

 which pronounces with so much authoritativeness that these groups 

 are " well distinguished." The whole of the Parrots have been 

 separated by M. Buffon into two primary sections ; — those of the 

 Old World, and those of the New. Such a division evidently dis- 

 arranges the affinities of the subordinate groups ; both continents 

 possessing species, which, if not strictly belonging to the same 

 group, belong at least to groups immediately connected by affinity, 

 and which nevertheless, in the arbitrary geographical arrangement 

 are disjoined from each other by a considerable interval. I shall 

 add the following example, which will sufficiently point out the 

 scientifick value of the subordinate groups. The American Parrots 

 with even tails are divided into — Amazones^ with yellow on the 

 head and red on the carpal joint of the wing; — Cricks^ smaller in 

 size, without yellow on the head, or red except on the coverts of 

 the wing ; — Papegais, still inferiour in size, without any red on 

 the wing. Here then in the second instance of the high-sounding 

 authorities paraded against us in the '' Dictionnaire^''^ I may be 

 allowed to assert, that the groups of M. BufFon are not " well dis- 

 tinguished," according at least to the usual modes and principles 

 of science ; and that they are set apart " by names." - 



+ If we turn to the 21st page of the 2nd volume of M. Le Vaillant's " His- 

 ioire des Perroquets" we shall find how much the opinion of that naturalist, 

 no inadequate judge on such a subject, is at variance with the assertion of the 

 writer, in the " Dictionnaire," that M. BufFon's groups of the Parrots are 

 *' tres-bien distingues." 



Vol. III. H 



