144 ESSAY ON CLASSIFICATION 



ing notice to this subject, whilst they are by universal consent con- 

 sidered as the most successful biographers of species; such are Buffon, 

 Reaumur, Roesel, Trembley, Smeathman, the two Hubers, Bewick, 

 Wilson,^ Audubon, Naumann, etc. Others have applied themselves 

 almost exclusively to the study of genera. Latreille^ is the most prom- 

 inent zoologist of this stamp; whilst Linnseus and Jussieu^ stand high- 

 est among botanists for their characteristics of genera, or at least for 

 their early successful attempts at tracing the natural limits of genera. 

 Botanists have thus far been more successful than zoologists in char- 

 acterizing natural families, though Cuvier and Latreille have done a 

 great deal in that same direction in Zoology, whilst Linnaeus was the 

 first to introduce orders in the classification of animals. As to the 

 higher groups, such as classes and types, and even the orders, we find 

 again Cuvier leading the procession, in which all the naturalists of 

 this century have followed. 



Now let us inquire Avhat these men have done in particular to dis- 

 tinguish themselves especially, either as biographers of species or as 

 characterizers of genera, of families, of orders, of classes, and of types. 

 And should it appear that in each case they have been considering 

 their subject from some particular point of view, it strikes me that 

 what has been acknowledged unconsciously as constituting the par- 

 ticular eminence or distinction of these men might very properly be 

 proclaimed, with grateful consciousness of their services, as the char- 

 acteristic of that kind of group which each of them has most suc- 

 cessfully illustrated; and I hope every unprejudiced naturalist will 

 agree with me in this respect. 



As to the highest divisions of the animal kingdom, first introduced 

 by Cuvier under the name of embranchements (and which we may 

 well render by the good old English word branch) he tells us him- 

 self that they are founded upon distinct plans of structure, cast, as 

 it were, into distinct moulds or forms. ^ Now there can certainly be 



2 [August J. von Rosenhof Roesel, 1705-1789; Abraham Trembley, 1710-1784; Henry 

 M. Smeathman, 1750-1787; Francois Huber, 1750-1831; Pierre Ruber, 1777-1840; 

 Thomas Bewick, 1753-1828; Alexander Wilson, 1766-1813.] 



3 [Pierre Andr^ Latreille, 1762-1833.] 



^ [Antoine Laurent de Jussieu, 1748-1836.] 



^it would lead me too far were I to consider here the characteristics of the different 

 kingdoms of Nature. I may, however, refer to the work of Isidore Geoffroy St.-Hillaire, 

 Histoire naturelle generale .... who has discussed this subject recently, though I 

 must object to the admission of a distinct kingdom for Man alone. 



