20 Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. [Vol. XX^'II, 



chela" and "dichela." Ray's terms are noteworthy because they present 

 various stages in the evolution of systematic names. First we find long 

 descriptive phrases such as " animalia vivipara pilosa quadrupeda ungulata" ; 

 secondly shorter phrases, e. g., "digitis indivisis," "pede multifido," "capite 

 rotundiore"; thirdly, single adjectives, "ungulata," "solidipeda," "rumi- 

 nantia," "bisulca," "anthropomorpha," etc.; fourthly, true nouns; 

 "Simiae," "Cetaceum genus." The lack of true nouns to denominate 

 natural groups had already been noted by Aristotle (p. 11), and Ray and 

 even later writers seem to distinguish between adjectives used in a denomi- 

 native or representative sense (r. g., "Ruminantia") and true generic 

 substantive names ("Simile"). Many of these adjectives, e. g. "ungulata," 

 "unguiculata," "solidipeda," "bisulca," "ruminantia," "non-ruminantia," 

 "anthropomorpha," "simise," "carnivora," "insectivora," "verminei" 

 and "cetacei" were used by later authors as true group names. 



From the foregoing consideration of Ray's methods and nomenclature 

 we turn to a consideration of the subject matter of the two tables given above. 



In his discussion of the former Ray makes many pregnant observations 

 (op. cit., p. 54) of which the following (which are here translated) are espe- 

 cially noteworthy: "This division of animals seems to me perhaps the most 

 exact of all, and most in accordance with nature. On the other hand, that 

 common division is to be rejected [which divides animals] into: 1. Quad- 

 rupeds (or as I prefer it Terrestrial creatures, whereunder I include also the 

 Snakes, which differ from the Lizards and many other oviparous quadrupeds, 

 in nothing except the lack of feet); 2. Birds. 3. Fishes; 4. Insects. 

 This division errs in that it reduces viviparous and oviparous quadrupeds 

 to the same genus; which differ in essential and generic attributes ["notes"] 

 while the oviparous quadrupeds agree with the snakes. 



"The division of animals according to the locus into Terrestrial, x\quatic, 

 and Amphibious, may sometimes be of use, but it answers little to the nature 

 of things and is in many ways bad; because: 1. It separates things which 

 agree in kind. For example it separates the Whales (called Fishes), and 

 what is worse, the Amphibious animals from the viviparous Quadrupeds; 

 it even separates the aquatic from the terrestrial Insects, contrary to reason 

 and to the opinion of all natural philosophers ["Physicorum"]. 2. It joins 

 things which differ in kind. For (to pass over some) certain amphil)ious 

 animals are viviparous and hairy, as the Beaver, the Otter, the Seal; others 

 oviparous, as the Water-Newt and the Frog. And in that very kind [ovip- 

 arous amphibia] we have the Lizards of which some are aquatic and 

 amjjhibious (such as Crocodiles and Salamanders), others terrestrial ([true] 

 Lizards)." 



In rejecting the locus or medium as a prime criterion of classification 



