118 ON TUE PHYSIOGNOMY OF SERPENTS. 



Zoology of Shaw, published in 1802, contains the descrip- 

 tion of serpents. This work, in every part, affords but a 

 crude and steril compilation ; the new species which the 

 author makes known are very few in number. It appears 

 that Shaw described the sea-serpents from specimens 

 broue^ht home by Russel. 



The most complete work which has yet appeared on 

 0])hi(lians, is that of Daudin : it forms a part of his Na- 

 tural History of Reptiles, published in 1802, and the 

 following years. The author has followed the method of 

 BiioxGNiART, but the formation of several new genera is 

 due to him. After the example of Russel, he has separated 

 the Pythons from the Boas ; his genus Bungarus has not 

 to this time sustained any alteration ; that of Vipera com- 

 prehends with him most of the venomous snakes properly 

 so called ; his genera Lachesis, llurriah, Eryx, &c., have 

 been rejected by me, while of the others, the Coralla and 

 Cothonia have never been adopted by naturalists. The 

 descriptions of Daudin are generally very minute, but he 

 is deficient in solid elementary knowledge, and is ruled by a 

 spirit of contradiction. This author, little skilled in criti- 

 cism, often commits very grave errors. The figures which 

 adorn his work are superior to those of Lacepede ; but, 

 reduced to too small a size, most of them are deficient in cor- 

 rectness. Daudin has availed himself of numerous mate- 

 rials furnished by the iconographs of Merrem and Russel, 

 published in part before the period when he wTote. 



The first of the works which we have just mentioned, 

 the Beitrage de MERRE^r, contains figures of serpents, easily 

 recognisable, and accompanied by good descriptions. The 

 second is the most extensive and richest collection, which has 

 ever appeared to illustrate that part of a fauna which treats 

 of Ophidians. The portraits which it contains, especially 

 in the second volume, are for the most part very accurate, 

 although the artists may be charged with neglect of the 

 numerous means which modern art possesses, and of which 

 the French delineators know so well how to avail themselves. 

 We owe to Russel many excellent remarks on the habits 

 of serpents ; the experiments which he made on the effects 

 of the bite of those animals merit quotation ; hence his sue- 



