PREFACE. & 



filiation at the expense of truth. Such of the 

 moderns as revived this science in Europe, under- 

 took the task more methodically, though not in 

 a manner so pleasing. Aldrovandus, Gesner, and 

 Johnson, seemed desirous of uniting the entertain- 

 ing and rich descriptions of the ancients with the 

 dry and systematic arrangement of which they 

 were the first projectors. This attempt, however, 

 was extremely imperfect, as the great variety of 

 nature was, as yet, but very inadequately known. 

 Nevertheless, by attempting to carry on both ob- 

 jects at once ; first, of directing us to the name of 

 the thing, and then giving the detail of its histo- 

 ry, they drew out their works into a tedious and 

 unreasonable length ; and thus mixing incompa- 

 tible aims, they have left their labours, rather to 

 be occasionally consulted than read with delight 

 by posterity. 



The latter moderns, with that good sense which 

 they have carried into every other part of science, 

 have taken a different method in cultivating natu- 

 ral history. They have been content to give, not 

 only the brevity, but also the dry and disgusting 

 air of a dictionary to their systems. Ray, Klein, 

 Brisson, and Linnaeus, have had only one aim, 

 that of pointing out the object of nature, of dis- 

 covering its name, and where it w r as to be found 

 in those authors that treated of it in a more pro- 

 lix and satisfactory manner. Thus natural histo- 

 ry, at present, is carried on in two distinct and 

 separate channels, the one serving to lead on to 

 the thing, the other conveying the history of the 

 "thing, as supposing it already known. 



