THE society's heritage from the macleays. 597- 



But Swainson did not confine his attention to the application of the Quinai-y 

 System, as modified by himself to the cla;isification of Birds. He narrates, in his 

 autobiogi-aphy, included in one of his books, how, under financial stress, he be- 

 came a "professional author," and, as such, the contributor of about a dozen popu- 

 lar textbooks on Natural History, to Lardner's "Cabinet of Natural History," 

 later "The Cabinet Cyclopaedia," during the years 1834-40. In some of these he 

 applied his views to the classification of Quadrupeds, Reptiles and Fishes, Mol- 

 lusea, and Insecta, as well as to the Principles of Classification and cognate mat- 

 ters. He became, in this way, the most voluminous expoimder of the Quinary 

 System. His books contain much useful information, but they are also open to 

 Strickland's objection to the fanciful way in which he forced the Protean forms of 

 nature into an apparent coincidence with a predetermined system. 



These quotations are given because, without a knowledge of what they repre- 

 sent, it is difficult to understand the condensed statements about W. S. 

 Macleay's work, as given in the Obituary Notices, to which reference has been 

 made. A'igors, and especially Swainsun, were the "injudicious friends" referred 

 to by Mr. Busk. 



Other Pre-Darwinian reviewers or critics of Macleay's system besides those 

 mentioned, include Kirby and Speuee [Introduction to Entomology. Fifth Edi- 

 tion (1828), Vol. iii., p. 12; Vol. iv., p. 477], E. Newman [Entomological Maga- 

 zine, Vol. v.. p. ix., 1838], J. O. Westwood [Arcana Entomologica, Vol. i., p. 188, 

 1845], W. Whewell [History of the Inductive Sciences, Vol. iii., p. 295, 1857], and 

 Louis Agassiz [Essay on Classification, p. 234, 1859]. 



In his obituary notice of W. S. Macleay, Mr. Busk remarks: "It would be 

 out of place here to enter into an analysis or criticism of this work [The Hor. 

 Ent.], in which, however, it may be said are contained some of the most important 

 speculations as to the affinities or relations of various gi-oups of animals to each 

 other ever offered to the world, and of which it is almost impossible to overrate 

 the suggestive value. Speculative ideas, however, of such a general kind, even in 

 the hands of their author, are apt to be earned too far in their application, ami, 

 when they fall into those of other speculators of less information and less capacity, 

 can hardly fail to be grossly misused. This has been the case with Mr. MacLeay'3 

 ideas; and thus, as observed by the author of a notice in the 'Reader,' of his 

 labours, the name of the 'circular system' and of 'quinarianism' became almost 

 bywords, and the work of one of the most thoughtful and original of English 

 biologists sank at one time into most unmerited neglect." 



It is a reasonable, and very probably a correct surmise, that tlie notice of 

 W. S. Macleay in the "Reader" referred to by Mr. Busk, was written by Huxley. 

 Particulars of Huxley's association with the "Reader." as promoter and editor-in- 

 chief, are given in the "Life and Letters" of Huxley [Vol. i., p. 305] . This 

 weekly journal was established after the quarterly Natural History Review was 

 given up, and lasted from 1863-66. It was the foreiimner of the current 

 "Nature," established in 1869. As far as one can judge* Huxley was the only one 

 of those associated with the management of the "Reader' who had personally 

 known W. S. Macleay. If so. his notice was his last tribute to the Sydney 

 friend of 1847-50. Unfortunately no copy of the "Reader" is available in Sydney. 



W. S. Macleay did reply to minor critics, like Bicheno and Fleming, on 

 such subjects as Systems in the abstract. Natural. Artificial, or Dichotomons. But 

 how was the finite mind of man to grapple successfully with such supernatural 



