RISE AND PROGRESS OF ZOOLOGY. 29 
not to our present object to enquire into the merits 
of Ray’s botanical system, which takes for its: 
basis the old divisions of trees (arbores) and plants 
(herbe). Suffice it to say, that although useful 
and even excellent when compared to former me- 
thods, this system has nothing very original in its 
structure, nor does it make the least approach to 
that masterly precision, which belongs to the ar- 
rangement of Linneus. The merit of Ray, there- 
fore, as a zoologist, must repose on his Historia 
Insectorum*, published by Derham after his death. 
That we may not be accused of undervaluing the 
talents of this most amiable man, we shall quote the 
words of one who was well qualified to speak on 
the subject, and who was enthusiastic in his praise. 
“ The descriptions given in the Historza Insectorum, 
especially considering the dark ages of this science 
in which they were written, are masterpieces of 
clearness and precision, and such as in general 
render it tolerably easy to ascertain the articles they 
belong to: but with respect to the arrangement 
and distribution of its materials, the work is in both 
these essential points unquestionably very far inferior 
to that of Linneus ; and, indeed, in some particulars, 
is not much superior to its predecessors. For, like 
them, it also incongruously blends the Linnean 
class of Vermes with the genuine and natural one 
of insects!”+ Having thus divested Ray of those 
inappropriate honours with which his memory has 
* Historia Insectorum, autore Joanne Raio, &c. opus post- 
humum Jussu, Regiz Societatis Londinensis editum. Londoni, 
1710. 
+ Haworth, Review of Entomology. 
