Chap. II. BRANCHES OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. 141 



guide me through this lain rinth. I knew, for instance, that though naturalists have 

 heou disputing, and are still disputing, about species and genera, they all distin- 

 guished the things themselves in pretty much the same manner. What A would 

 call a species, B called only a variety or a race ; but then B might call a sub- 

 genus the very same aggregate of individuals which A called a species; or what 

 A called a genus was considered by B as a famil}' or an order. Now it was this 

 something called no matter how, for which I tried to find out characters which would 

 lead all to call it l)y the same name ; thus limiting the i)ractical difficulty in tlie 

 application of the name to a question of accuracy in the observations, and no longer 

 allowing it to be an eternal contest about mere nomenclature. 



At this stage of my investigation it struck me, that the character of the writ- 

 ings of eminent naturalists might throw some light ujjon the subject itself There 

 are authors, and among them some of the most celebrated contributors to our 

 knowledge in Natural History', who never busied themselves with classification, or 

 paid only a passing notice to this subject, whilst they are, by universal consent, 

 considered as the most successful biographers of species ; such are BufTon, Reau- 

 mur, Roesel, Trembley, Smeathman, the two Hubers, Bewick, Wilson, Audubon, 

 Naumann, eta Others have applied themselves almost exclusively to the study of 

 genera. Latreille is the most prominent zoologist of this stamp ; whilst Linna'us 

 and Jussieu stand highest among botanists for their characteristics of genera, or at 

 least for their early successful attempts at tracing tlie natural limits of genera. Bota- 

 nists have thus far been more successful than zoologists in characterizing 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 have followed all the natu- 

 ralists of this century. 



Now let us inquire what these men have done in jjarticular to distinguish them- 

 selves especiallj-, either as biographers of species, or as charact«rizers of genera, of 

 families, of orders, of cla.sses, and of types. And should it appear that in each case 

 they have been considering their subject from some particidar point of view, it strikes 

 me that what has been acknowledged unconsciously as constituting the particvdar emi- 

 nence or distinction oi' these men, might very properly be prodaiuuMl. with grate- 

 ful con.sciousness of their services, as the characteristic of that kind of groups which 

 each of them has most successfully illustrated; and I hope every unprejudieed natu- 

 ralist will agree with me in this respect. 



As to the highest divisions of the animal kingdom, first iutroduccd 1)\- ("u\ii>r 

 under the name of enihmnrlicmcnts^ (and which we may well render \)\ the good olil 

 English word branch,) he tells us himself that they are founded upon distinct plans 



