INTRODUCTION 53 
21. “Tinamous ”—Tinamus, Tatham. 27. “Mouettes””—Larus, Linn. 
22. “Foulques ou Poules d’eau”— | 28. “ Pétrels ””—Procellaria; Linn. 
Fulica, Linn. 29, “ Pélicans”’—Pelecanus, Linn. 
23. “Grues ’—Grus, Pallas. 30. ‘“Canards ”—Anas, Linn. 
24. “Hérodions ’—Herodit, Mliger. 31. “Grébes””—Podiceps, Latham. 
25. No name given, but said to include | 32. “ Plongeons””—Colymbus, Latham. 
“les ibis et les spatules.” 33. “ Pingouins’’—Alca, Latham. 
26. “Gralles ou Kchassiers’’—Grallz. 34. ‘“ Manchots ”’—A ptenodytes, Forster. 
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 négatif,” and had failed to define the limits—differed 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 efforts 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 
1 With the exception of a brief and wholly inadequate notice in the Edinburgh 
Journal 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. 
