M ACGILLIVRAY. 1 3 



as composed of skin and feathers, but to them I now cease from 

 addressing myself ; they will gradually disappear from the earth, 

 and their place will be occupied by men who will study birds as 

 organic beings." Like himself, of course ; but what sane person 

 disputes that a bird is an organic being 1 The golden eagle, for 

 instance, has been called by him " a magnificent, noble-looking 

 bird," but strip him of his skin and feathers and he would be a 

 poor, sad-looking figure indeed! — notwithstanding the length of 

 his intestinal canal or thickness of gizzard. But who would 

 ■ever dream of estimating the character of " a magnificent noble- 

 looking organic being " (including man) by the length of his 

 duodenum or size of his rectum 1 



And what I think is still more objectionable —the labours of 

 old and standard naturalists are ungenerously shoved aside after 

 having laid the basis, as it were, of ornithology ; and after our 

 very careful and minute, not to say immaculate author, had used 

 and was done with them. For instance, he says — "I do not 

 profess to add a new system to the many already in partial use, 

 or that have passed away like their authors. Those of Linnaeus, 

 Latham, Blumenbach, Illiger, Viellot, Temnick, and Cuvier may 

 all be said to be extinct, for none of these worthies can muster 

 half-a-dozen followers at the present day." Now this is very 

 disrespectful to the memory of such eminent naturalists as 

 Linnaeus, Cuvier, and the rest, to say the least of it, unless their 

 names are only introduced to show the erudition of our learned 

 historian. 



Not content with this, he casts another stone at them by 

 saying — " Indeed, their systems were never generally adopted 

 even in a single country in Europe. Methods spring up and die 

 like mushrooms, and for the same reason : — They are composed 

 of flimsy and unsubstantial materials, easily elaborated, and have 

 no solid frame to give them stability ; they fall suddenly into 

 decay, withered by the breath of criticism, which but serves to 

 invigorate that which is possessed of real stamina." Meaning, of 

 ■course, his own. Now, I cannot help entering my protest 

 against this, both on behalf of the labours of our old authors, 

 and also against such expressions that anything connected with 

 Nature or Natural History is composed of " flimsy or unsub- 

 stantial materials" — no, not even the mere classification of 

 species. 



These old naturalists were as anxious — though, perhaps, not 

 so able as Dr Macgillivray, in their study of Nature — and as 

 ■earnest in their desire to give the world the benefit of their 



