INTRODUCTION jj 



27. " Mouettes " — Larus, Linn. 



28. " Petrels " — Procellaria, Linn. 



29. "Pelicans" — Pelecanus, Linn. 



30. " Canards " — Anas, Linn. 



31. "Grebes" — Podiceps, Latham. 



32. " Plongeons " — Colymbus, Latham. 



33. "PingouLns" — ^^ca, Latham. 



21. "Tinamous" — Tinamus, Latham. 



22. "Foulques ou Poules d'eau" — 



Fulica, Linn. 



23. " Grues "—Grus, Pallas. 



24. " Herodions " — Herodii, Illiger. 



25. No name given, but said to include 



"les ibis et les spatules." 



26. " Gralles ou J^chassiers " — Grallse. 34. "Manchots" — Aptenodytes,Yoxs,ie.T. 



The preceding list is given to shew the very marked agreement of 

 L'Herminier's results compared with those obtained fifty years later by 

 another investigator, who approached the subject from an entirely different, 

 though still osteological, basis. The sequence of the Families adopted is of 

 course open to much criticism ; but that would be wasted upon it at the 

 present day ; and the cautious naturalist will remember that it is generally 

 difficult and in most cases absolutely impossible to deploy even a small 

 section of the Animal Kingdom into line. So far as a linear arrangement 

 will permit, the above list is very creditable, and will not only pass 

 muster, but cannot easily be surpassed for convenience even at this 

 moment. Experience has shewn that a few of the Families are composite, 

 and therefore require further splitting ; but examples of actually false group- 

 ing cannot be said to occur. The most serious fault perhaps to be found is 

 the intercalation of the Ducks (No. 30) between the Pelicans and the 

 Grebes — but every systematist must recognize the difficulty there is in 

 finding a place for the Ducks in any arrangement we can at present con- 

 trive that shall be regarded as satisfactory. Many of the excellences of 

 L'Herminier's method could not be pointed out without too great a 

 sacrifice of space, because of the details into which it would be necessary 

 to enter ; but the trenchant way in which he shewed that the " Passereaux " 

 — a group of which Cuvier had said " Son caractere semble d'abord 

 purement n^gatif," and had failed to define the limits — diff'ered so 

 completely from every other assemblage, while maintaining among its own 

 innumerable members an almost perfect essential homogeneity, is very 

 striking, and shews how admirably he could grasp his subject. Not less 

 conspicuous are his merits in disposing of the groups of what are 

 ordinarily known as Water-birds, his indicating the affinity of the Rails 

 (No. 22) to the Cranes (No. 23), and the severing of the latter from the 

 Herons (No. 24). His union of the Snipes, Sandpipers and Plovers into 

 one group (No. 26) and the alliance, especially dwelt upon, of that group 

 with the Gulls (No. 27) are steps which, though indicated by Merrem, are 

 here for the first time clearly laid down ; and the separation of the Gulls 

 from the Petrels (No. 28) — a step in advance already taken, it is true, by 

 Illiger — is here placed on indefeasible ground. With all this, perhaps on 

 account of all this, L'Herminier's efi'orts did not find favour with his 

 scientific superiors, and for the time things remained as though his investi- 

 gations had never been carried on.^ 



Two years later Nitzsch, who was indefatigable in his endeavour to 



■^ With the exception of a brief and wholly inadequate notice in the EdirJburgh 

 Joxm-nal of Natural History (i. p. 90), I am not aware of attention having been directed 

 to L'Herminier's labours by British ornithologists for several years after ; but con- 

 sidering how they were employing themselves at the time (as is shewn in another 

 place) this is not surprising. 



