in Systematical Arrangement. 483 



divided from it, what becomes of the nineteen remaining 

 species ? If you divide a genus into two parts, what can 

 those parts be but subgenera. It matters not that one part 

 contains nineteen species, and the other part one only : the 

 genus is divided, the divisions cannot be genera; and by 

 whatever name we may please to designate those divisions, 

 the original objection as to their unequal value, at least so it 

 seems to me, remains of as much force as ever. Let us now 

 enquire how those minor genera originate. Some one, in 

 describing a genus of twenty species, is struck by some very 

 decided character in one bird, and instantly seizes on this 

 character, and makes his bird a genus, even though he leave 

 nineteen species in the old genus, and have only one in the 

 new. The question now becomes, What should he have 

 done ? and here Mr. Jenyns can help us. He remarks of 

 Emberiza, Tetrao, Perdix, A'rdea, &c, — " each includes 

 several smaller and more subordinate groups." Why, then, 

 I would ask, hesitate about dividing them ? Why object to 

 Plectrophanes, .Lagopus, Cotiirnix, and ^ycticorax being 

 rendered genera, when several other such genera might be 

 instituted? In short, instead of singling one bird out of 

 twenty for the type of a new genus founded on a particular 

 character, should not the describer rather revise the whole 

 group, consult all the characters, and ascertain whether it is 

 not divisible into half a dozen genera, each having as good 

 sound characters as the single bird whose peculiarity, from 

 its prominence, had struck him so forcibly ? What, then, 

 becomes of the Linnaean genus ? I would reply, it becomes 

 a family, and these its divisions are true genera. 



On the subject of subgenera, I must add my own opinion, 

 of however little weight it may be, to the list of those already 

 expressed, in decided opposition to the adoption of them. 

 They are objectionable, on the ground that the generic name 

 must be retained; and thus the memory is burthened with 

 three names, instead of two, for every species : for, 1 believe, it 

 is admitted that the generic name must be employed both in 

 speaking and writing. I know of no instance in which it has 

 been dispensed with. How needlessly cumbrous it would be 

 to say, Emberiza Plectrophanes nivalis ! For common com- 

 fort, one of these must be dismissed : if the first, Plectrophanes 

 becomes a genus ; if the second, it ceases to be a division. 

 As to the use of letters or signs, I would enquire, how we 

 are to apply them in conversation, or even in writing ? Are 

 we to place them between the genus and species, thus, 

 Emberiza f nivalis? In the present state of the science, 

 there are three courses open to us : first, to write Emberiza 



i i 2 



