Jussieu, Lamarck, Latreille, and others. Having found 

 the difficulties of a change of masters, we feel some- 

 what sensitive on this question, and are greatly de- 

 ceived if others have not had equal difficulties. None 

 can pretend to have done what Linnaeus did: 



Secuit congeriem, sectamque redegit in membra; 



and none, therefore, had so legitimate a right to settle 

 its nomenclature as he ; which, with all its faults and 

 imperfections, is far better than any thing we have 

 obtained in return ; in some instances we have re- 

 ceived base coin in lieu of our genuine metal; and far 

 more numerous blots may be found in the escutcheon 

 of these new leaders and arbiters of the destinies of 

 natural history, than are to be discovered in the 

 Systema Naturce. The Helix ianthina and Mya 

 margaritifera, are just as good, in our humble appre- 

 hension, as the Ianthina and Unio genera of the 

 Testacea of Lamarck. This sectarism of science can 

 serve no possible good, but may be productive of 

 infinite mischief. In saying thus much, while it is 

 evident that generic and specific names must have 

 a fixed nomenclature, not subject to caprice or whim, 

 and, when fixed, remain the monument of ages ; we 

 regret that these have been too often the ideal creation 

 of the exhibitor, or even invented to gratify spleen 

 (Smithia sensitiva, and others): a nomenclature is, 

 therefore, necessary and essential ; otherwise the 

 greater number of recorded and observed phenomena 

 would be lost to the republic of science. The Linnaean 

 names were received all over the civilised world, but 

 jarring attributes now mingle their discordant notes, 

 and mar the charm of modern science. 



A great part of our modern elementary works on 

 science, as Botany, Entomology, and Conchology, pre- 

 B 3 



