Retrospective Criticism, ^S 



to T^trao than to Perdix. If we place these genera, as Mr. 

 Newman (p. 484.) proposes, in two distinct families of Rasores, 

 viz., Tetraonidae and Perdicidse, still these two will be more 

 nearly connected with each other than they are with Phasi^- 

 nidae, or any other collateral family. Or if we follow Mr. 

 Blyth (p. 487.), in making them into subfamilies, Tetraonae 

 and Perdicianae, of the family Tetraonidae, we shall diminish 

 the simplicity of our system by multiplying our groups, and 

 its uniformity by introducing a new kind of group, the sub- 

 family, which it will be impossible to apply to every branch 

 of the animal kingdom. We ought, I think, to adopt no 

 more gradations of groups in any one class than admit of 

 being established in every class. It therefore only remains to 

 make these minor groups into subgenera or sections of the 

 larger ones, Tetrao and Perdix. Subgenera are practically 

 useful for facility of reference ; and th6y are useful to the more 

 philosophic naturalist, by bringing into one view those species 

 which are nearest allied ; thus giving a right direction to his 

 comparisons and observations: but it is, I think, of the 

 utmost importance that these subgenera should not have 

 names imposed upon them. The needless multiplication of 

 names is the very bane of science ; loading the memory be- 

 yond its powers of endurance, and degrading the philosophic 

 naturalist into a walking dictionary. Careful and minute 

 observations on animals cannot be carried too far ; they enrich 

 the descriptions of species, and supply characters for sub- 

 genera ; and hence Mr. Blyth deserves much praise for his 

 careful remarks upon the habits of birds, in Rennie's Field 

 Naturalisfs Magazine ; but I cannot agree with him, that be- 

 cause distinct, and even natural, groups can be formed upon 

 these minor characters, therefore every such group is to be 

 made a genus, and honoured with a name. Suppose that, 

 instead of studying one order of birds alone, Mr. Blyth was 

 to extend the same principle to the whole animal kingdom, we 

 should have, perhaps, 50,000 or 60,000 genera ! Who, then, 

 could be an ornithologist, much less a zoologist ? Language 

 itself would fail in finding names for such a countless multi- 

 tude. 



Another strong objection to naming subgenera is, that the 

 generic and subgeneric name are continually confounded and 

 used promiscuously. This is often the case with the French 

 writers ; and even the immortal Begne Animal of Cuvier is 

 not free from this blemish. The confusion which hence arises 

 is evident. Mr. Jenyns's plan seems,' therefore, to be the 

 best ; to distinguish subgenera, or, as I would rather call 

 them, sections, by signs or letters. But now comes Mr. New- 



