1822.] Bewick’s History of British Birds. 307 
suffered more than any other branch of zoology, from the la- 
boured aggregation of synonymes, and the creation of new terms. 
To Linneus this privilege might be allowed, were it only to 
show the chaos out of which he brought order; but where is the 
necessity of varying or repeating names for the fiftieth time ? Not 
the least amusing part of the matter is that though authors pre- 
determine to refuse to such synonyma all authority in their wri- 
tings, a lurking penchant for display leads to their insertion, and 
to its unavoidable concomitants,—additional bulk and expense. 
When once the identity of a bird has been ascertained, and its 
place in the prevailing nomenclature universally acknowledged, 
and therefore fixed, all names but the Linnean, or systematic, 
and the best established vernacular name, may be advan- 
tageously dispensed with; unless, perhaps, in the form of notes, 
to serve as the basis of future catalogues. We could say much 
on this subject, and on the principles and details of classification ; 
but our limits do not admit of more than one or two remarks. 
To us it appears as though the aspect which natural history in 
general, and ornithology in particular, presents, however bnght 
in some respects, were by no means encouraging, so far as classi- 
fication is concerned. So many new arrangements and modi- 
fications (mere transpositions would have been immaterial) have 
been propounded and are daily pouring forth, that we look in 
vain for that universality of language which it was the primary 
object of Linnzus to establish, which was spoken by his illus- 
trious pupils and their immediate successors, and enabled them 
to do the mighty things they have done towards the elucidation 
of nature. In Germany and the north of Europe, a close adhe- 
rence to the Linnean system ;—amongst ourselves, the inter- 
mingling with that system alterations from every quarter ;—in 
France the rejection of this and all other systems, and the 
creation of a new one, or rather a variety of systems different in 
their principles, and endlessly varied in their details,—promise 
such a store of glorious confusion for the naturalists of Europe, 
as will of itself long afford them matter of employment. 
We may be wrong, but much of this “ most admired dis- 
order,” we imagine, can be traced to a too early meddling with 
the Linnzan system, chiefly by two writers, whose popularity 
and influence were for a long time very considerable ; but who, 
whatever their other merits might be, were not the best qualified 
either for rectifying old systems, or framing new. We mean 
Buffon and Pennant. The one affected to despise all system— 
the other entertained the utmost reverence for the Linnen sys- 
tem. Nevertheless each must be indulged with a system of his 
own. 
We would touch this subject with all the delicacy and defe- 
rence which are due to the eminent authors who have so greatly 
illustrated it. We are not decrying innovation ;—time and cir- 
cumstances suiting, change is not only desirable, but indis- 
x 2 
‘ 
* 
