of certain Birds of Cuba. 23 
skull, teeth, fingers, nails, organs of generation, and pectoral 
mamme. It is the only order of Mammalia that has not been 
pointed out and named by Aristotle* ; but as he has subdivided 
it, and shown the affinities of the principal groups composing it, 
it is easy to imagine, that if he could have sacrificed the natural 
pride of philosophy so much as to class himself with any inferior 
species of animal, he would have named this group also. Ray 
may be said to have perceived it, from calling the group zA«- 
ruavye, Which evidently includes Man; but by some mistake, he 
has forgotten to make any mention of Man in his system. ‘This 
order was aptly termed by Linneeus Primares; and the natural 
construction of it was the most original as well as important fact 
that he ever demonstrated in the natural history of Mammalia. 
Another natural group which all zoologists have perceived, 
* Notwithstanding the number of ancient and modern writers who have employed 
themselves in commenting on the Historia Animalium of Aristotle, I am not aware 
that any tabular view has ever been given of this naturalist’s arrangement of Mam- 
malia and Birds, unless that given by ABlian, lib. xi. c. 37. ed. Schneid. be so considered. 
This is owing to Aristotle’s commentators, with the exception of Ray, Scaliger, and 
Schneider, being all ignorant of the science. As for Ailian, he was not merely igno- 
rant of natural history, but, moreover, without capacity to understand it, as appears 
from the manner in which he filled the common-place book, which has come down to 
us. Aristotle’s work is, on the other hand, invaluable. The astonishing talent he 
possessed for observation and generalization, not merely appears by comparing him 
with his followers among the ancients, but also when he is compared with the most 
profound of modern zoologists. The following tabular view of his arrangement, where 
his own nomenclature is given, will best show the truth of this opinion. How far he 
has been improved upon either in arrangement or nomenclature, may thus be easily 
understood. ‘The Table ought in particular to be compared with that given, p. 60 of 
the Synopsis of our great countryman Ray, who perhaps was the most original zoolo- 
gist, after Aristotle, that ever existed. In mentioning this subject, I do not refer to 
Pliny, because the few passages of his entertaining work that relate to arrangement 
are borrowed from Aristotle; and not having been understood in the original, are 
miserably deteriorated in the translation. Natural History is, perhaps, the last of all 
sciences that a mere compiler ought to meddle with. 
Systema 
