THE OSPREY. 



153 



and called Aquatic, Suctorial and Rasorial. The 

 Aquatic or Natatorial types are primarily 

 exemplified by the Natatores or web-footed 

 swimming- birds; the Suctorial by the Grallato- 

 rial or long-billed wading birds, and the Raso- 

 rial by the Rasores or Gallinaceous birds. Each 

 < > f these types, it is contended, is represented 

 analogically in every other circular group, and 

 this mode of representation is exemplified in a 

 table giving five categories of different taxono- 

 mic values (p. 253). It is reproduced with the 

 author's triumphant introduction. 



"Now, to prove that these examples are not 

 taken at random, but are actually supported by 

 analysis, we shall place before the reader a 

 table of the aberrant types of some of the groups 

 we have here intimated: — 



Aberrant Group of the 



Series of 

 Quadrupeds 



Ungulata. 

 Glires. 



Cctacea. 



Series of Verte- 

 bra ta. 



Reptile-. 



Amphibia. 



Fishes. 



Series of the 

 Pachydermata. 



Megatherium. 



Hyrax. 

 Hippopotamus. 



Series of the 

 Kasores. 



Guan. 

 Pigeon. 



Ostrich. 



Series Of 

 the Ptilota. 



Hymenoptera. 



Coleoptera. 

 Neuroptera" . 



Fifth, our author enters upon his final propo- 

 sition by a restatement of it, but with the cau- 

 tion (2661 that "the full demonstration of this 

 law would obviously require an analytical expo- 

 sition of the whole number of circles here men- 

 tioned; which, to do thoroughly, would in itself 

 require a volume." 



Space can only be afforded to the summary of 

 these groups which follows the long explanato- 

 ry remarks (p. 2o8. 269). 



"The animal kingdom, then, may be presumed 

 to contain nine different ranks or gradations of 

 circular groups, commencing with the highest, 

 and terminating with the lowest assemblage-. 

 These groups have received the following 

 names, which at once indicate their relative 

 value: 1, Kingdom; 2. Sub-kingdom; 3. Class; 

 4. Order; 5. Tribe; 6. Family; 7. Sub-family; 

 8. Genus; 9. Sub-genus. This latter is the 

 lowest description of circular group hitherto de- 

 tected in nature: for although, when a sub- 

 genus is very perfect, it sometimes contains the 

 five types of form common to all circular groups; 

 yet, as we have just observed, no instance has 

 yet been pointed out, wherein each of these 

 types is also circular". 



Such is the "philosophy" which, as Swain son 

 truly claimed, was received at some time or 

 other, with more or less cordiality, by almost 

 every English naturalist that flourished in the 

 third and fourth decades of the century lately 

 closed. 



Doubtless the original cause of the view 

 that the constituents of each group of animals 

 were represented in every other group resulted 

 from the dim appreciation of the fact that in 

 many groups there is a deviation, from the nor- 

 mal members, of some representatives in vari- 

 ous physiological characters and adaptation-. 



such as kind of food, manner of procuring it, 

 and greater love and aptitude for aquatic life. 

 < »u such a precarious foundation was erected 

 the fantastic superstructure of the circular and 

 quiuarian philosophers! 



The philosophers limited the circles to nine. 

 Swainson expressly tells us in the Treatise (p. 

 272i that nine is the limit. The nine are the 

 ill kingdom, (2| subkingdom, (3) class, (4) order, 

 (5) tribe, (6) family, (7) subfamily, (8) genus, (9) 

 subgenus. He thought, indeed, that there was 

 some possibility that "the species composing 

 these little assemblages" called subgenera 

 might "present us with representations of those 

 primary types of forms already defined" but 

 admits that he had "not vet been able to delect 

 any circular groups below the rank of sub- 

 genera". 



In most of the reviews and journals of the 

 day, the "Preliminary Discourse" and the 

 "Treatise on the Geography and Classification 

 of Animals", as well as succeeding volumes, 

 were cordially welcomed and highly extolled, and 

 their author sometimes hailed as the greatest of 

 naturalists. Nevertheless, there were excep- 

 tions even in those days. Swainson 's reason- 

 ing was rightly appreciated by some in his own 

 time. For example, in a review of the "Pre- 

 liminary Discourse" in the Athenaeum for 

 November 2, 1834 (p. 796), the writer gives selec- 

 tions from the work picturing- certain analogies 

 and in strong but true terms affirms "that the 

 reasoning is absurd, the analogy ridiculous, and 

 the whole comes nearer what is commonly de- 

 signated 'twaddle' than we had reason to expect 

 in a work which modestly professes 'not only to 

 stimulate the diffusion of knowledge, but to 

 raise the tone of the public mind, and to awaken 

 a taste for the contemplation of the work- oi 

 nature' ". The reviewer aptly indicates that 

 the analogies of Swainson may remind one of 

 "Fluellin, in his celebrated analogy between the 

 rivers in Monmouth and Macedon. - 'Tis so like 

 as my fingers to my fingers; and there is salmons 

 in both' ". 



Such criticism, however, was quite exceptional 

 and. as Professor Alfred Newton has remarked, 

 fin Encyclopaedia Britannica, xviii. 14.) the 

 Quinary System "for some years seemed likely 

 to carry all before it". Newton adds that "the 

 success it gained was doubtless due in some 

 degree to the difficulty which most men had in 

 comprehending it. for it was enwrapped in allur- 

 ing mystery, but more to the confidence with 

 which it was announced as being the long- 

 looked for key to the wonders of creation, since 

 its promoters did not hesitate to term it the dis- 

 covery of 'the Natural System", though they 

 condescended. by way of explanation to less 

 exalted intellects than their own, to allow it the 

 more moderate appellation of the Circular or 

 Quinary System". 



In several places Swainson named some of the 

 prominent English naturalists who had adopted 

 the circular theory and in the first volume of tin- 

 work on birds Ip. 200), in a forecast of the 

 triumph of his views, he claims, "In the writ- 

 ings of such labourers, in the different depart- 

 ments of zoology, as M. M. [Mm.] Bennett, 

 Owen. Ogelby [Ogilby], Westwood, Doubleday, 



