116 ON THE POPULARITY OF NATURAL HISTORY. 



Violet-bed. But the same ploughman would not hesitate to express his surprize 

 if he saw you near the nest of the Lark with any other intention than that of- 

 taking it ; and the merchant would stare if referred from his ledger to study 

 Lixdley's Natural System of Botany for the place of the Violet. 



It is within my own experience, and I doubt not of almost every practical 

 naturalist, whatever branch he may especially favour, that the tables are quite 

 turned as soon as you leave general assertions of the " beauty of Nature," and 

 perhaps interesting facts and anecdotes respecting plants and animals, to touch 

 upon the scientific part of the subject. Not a mortal man exists with whom you 

 can by possibility come in contact, but bores you with that eternal theme the 

 state of the weather, its changes and its indications, nay, perhaps the oracular 

 observation has been made that " the glass has risen," but attempt to discuss 

 the various forms of cloud, and the minutiae of those phenomena on which the 

 state of the weather depends, and you soon find all interest subside, and it too 

 soon appears that Meteorology is considered a dry subject. If Zoology/Ornithology, 

 Entomology, or Botany, be tested in a similar way with reference to the general 

 feeling on the subject, how few will be able to comprehend their details, or name 

 scientifically the animal, bird, insect, or plant presented to their inspection. How 

 superficial, then, must be this gold-leaf " popularity " which the slightest rub 

 effaces ; for if Natural History were really popular in the proper sense of the 

 term, its study would be general, and its terms " familiar as household words." 



It becomes necessary then to submit the subject to careful -analysis, that all 

 incongruities may be removed, and that it may be clearly perceptible what 

 portion of it really meets the general plaudit, and what rather appertains to the 

 comparative few, and thus perhaps an intermediate path of utility may be 

 descried. I shall therefore propose a division of 



I. Popular Natural History. 



II. Scientific Natural History. 



In discussing the first, I must premise that I mean it to include a description 

 of, or reference to those objects of Nature which meet the universal eye, and of 

 course must obviously more or less be within the observation of every one, in 

 language which requires no glossary to unlock its meaning. I shall subdivide 

 it into 



' I. Descriptive. 

 II. Symbolical. 



The description of natural objects in easy but correct language, familiar, yet 

 not vulgar, must ever give delight to mankind in general, because it appeals to 

 their best and happiest feelings, and as it refers to past pleasant things, so it 

 points out a vista to what may occur again — it holds forth objects perhaps before 

 only cursorily examined, and gives an impulse to their re -examination at the 



