M'Murtrie's Translation of the Regne Animal. 453 



fer to the original text, to know what species are under consi- 

 deration : thus, at page 292, not knowing what to make of " les 

 mesanges," (titmouse or tom-tit,) he has omitted it altogether, 

 although in the original it stands at the head of several of the 

 species, whose descriptions follow ; and indeed, when he comes 

 to translate those descriptions, we find the following references : 

 " la M. a tete bleue. Le M. huppe. Le M. a longue queue ;" 

 whilst it is impossible for students to know what the letter M 

 refers to, because the generic term mesanges is entirely omitted. 



At page 373, is another monstrous blunder : speaking of the 

 family cultirostres, he says, "we subdivide it into three tribes; 

 the cranes, the true herons, and the swa?is" And he then proceeds 

 to describe the grus, or crane ; the cancroma, or herons, and — 

 the swans of course — no, he describes the ciconia, or storks ; and 

 without perceiving his previous error : this, too, from a Latinist, 

 who draws distinctions between carnaria and carnivora. We 

 must remark, here, that if the translator had understood the 

 French or Latin languages, he never would have translated ci- 

 cognes, (ciconia, storks,) into swans ; and if he had had but a 

 sprinkling of knowledge of the subject, he would have known 

 that swans belong to the great duck genus, (anas L.) which his 

 author has placed in the family lamellirostres, and not in that 

 of cultirostres. 



At the end of the first volume, we find an " Appendix, by the 

 American Editor," of which much cannot be said in favour : it 

 is very imperfect, and fails, in numerous cases, to establish spe- 

 cific distinctions. The worst feature of this appendix is the re- 

 iteration of species previously described under different names, 

 and by naturalists, whose labours have been, in other instances, 

 overlooked or neglected. The vespertilio ludfvgtis, of Le Conte, 

 is the r. suhtdatus of Say. See Long's Expedition to the Rocky 

 Mountains, Vol. IL p. 62. The v. noctivagans of the same natu- 

 ralist, is not sufficiently characterized, and its habitat not men- 

 tioned. The plecotus macrotis of L. C. is most probably the 

 megalotis of Rafinesque. The itycleris novehoracensis, is quoted 

 as figured in Wils. Orn. vi. pi. 4; and the translator adds, 

 " whence it has been quoted by M. Cuvier as the taphizous" 

 I venture to assert that this may be classed among the nume- 

 rous inconsiderate insinuations of this work, and that Cuvier is 

 entirely correct in this reference of the taphizous from Wilson. 



