372 Notices respecting New Books. 



specting Mr. Rennie's character as a naturalist, which the perusal of 

 the introductory matter discloses. His incapacity for the office he has 

 assumed of Editor of Montagu's work, will be made abundantly evi- 

 dent hereafter, 



Mr. Rennie appears to be wholly ignorant of the higher philosophy 

 of Natural History, considered either as a branch of science, as a 

 means of training the mind to the love of truth, or as an instrument 

 of leading it to the admiration and adoration of the Creator. He 

 seems to have little knowledge or perception of the vastness of na- 

 ture, and none whatever of the fact, that there are such things as de- 

 sign and order in the distribution of the beings and substances which 

 compose it. 



He arrogantly misrepresents the scientific character of Linnseus, 

 most disingenuously adopting the remarks upon it made by Mr. 

 W.S.Macleay and some of the naturalists of the School he has founded, 

 which have been suggested to them by their peculiar views ; views 

 upon which he afterwards heaps abuse, and still more deeply misre- 

 presents. 



His opinions of the merits of the various investigators of nature 

 whom he has occasion to mention, of the highest rank in their re- 

 spective departments of science, are pronounced in the most con- 

 ceited and unbecoming manner : the most eminent and learned na- 

 turalists, whether practical observers or systematists, are equally the 

 objects of his contempt: thus we have "the dry, lifeless, marrowless, 

 and unphilosophic descriptions of the Linnaean school" (p. xxv.) ; 

 their " gross inaccuracy" (p. xxx.) ; the " Linnaean barrenness of idea 

 and of deduction" (ib.); the " hot and testy " behaviour of Linnaeus 

 (p. xxxvii.); the " briefness and poverty" of Pennant (p. xxvi.)^ the 

 " credulous absurdity" (ib.) and the "wild, mischievous, and most 

 absurd analogies" (p. xlviii.) of Cuvier ; and the "trash" of Mohs and 

 Haidinger (p. xxvii.)*. 



Mr. Rennie further betrays the most palpable want of knowledge 

 of the ordinar)' meaning conveyed by common forms of expression. 

 He mingles some portions of the nomenclature of the Quinary System, 

 in an insidious manner, with the monstrous errors and absurdities 



* In the Englishman's Magazine for August last is an article entitled 

 " Mismanagement of the Library of the British Museum," which we have 

 been informed is from the pen of Mr. Rennie. Its style in every respect 

 corroborates this information, exactly resembling that of the prefatory matter 

 to Montagu. We mention it here, because Mr. VV. S. Macleay's Annulosa 

 Javanica is characterized in it (p. .'589) as a "flimsy production," the "effron- 

 tery" of its " presumptuous author" being mentioned ; while Dr. Horsfield's 

 Lepidopterous Insects is stated to be a " worthy companion" to the Annulosa 

 Javanica, being, therefore, also "a flimsy production'' manifesting the "ef- 

 frontery "of its " presumptuous author." — The flimsy productions, effi'ontery, 

 and presumption of Mr.iV.S.Macleay and of Dr. Horsfield ! authors of some 

 of the most splendid discoveries and profound researches in zoology which 

 have ever been accomplished, and whose reputation is spread throughout the 

 civilized world ! To what part of the duties of Professor of Natural History 

 in the King's College of London does this treatment of two of the most 

 eminent cultivators of thnt science belong ? 



which 



