NOMENCLATURE. 57 



.hat the great multiplication of the minor divisions of the 

 Linnaean genera was but an unnecessary frittering of science, 

 having not the least utility, and tending only to disgust the 

 student. Let us, however, look more narrowly at the sub- 

 ject, and endeavour to ascertain what are the grounds for 

 these opinions. It cannot be denied that the machinery of 

 nomenclature, like that of every other apparatus, must have 

 had both a commencement and a founder. Take, for in- 

 stance, the machinery of a timepiece, which, in the early 

 stages of clock-making, was most cumbrous, notwithstanding 

 its simplicity. Still, to a certain extent, it fully answered 

 the purposes of its construction that of dividing the day 

 into a certain number of portions. By degrees, as the addi- 

 tions of the minute hand and the striking apparatus, and 

 that of the divisions of a minute, of the repeater, and that of 

 the chimes, were made, the machinery became more com- 

 plex ; and instead of simply turning round once in a certain 

 period, we find wheel revolving within wheel to an extent 

 which, to a savage, has the appearance even of life itself. 



Such is precisely the case with the nomenclature of natural 

 history. Linnaeus, the great inventor of the system, was 

 indeed so well acquainted with the general relations of the 

 great divisions of nature, that, although it is certain that his 

 botanical far surpassed his zoological knowledge, it is a tribute 

 which is willingly bestowed upon him by all, that in the con- 

 struction of his general groups the modern naturalist must 

 be compelled to tread, for a great extent, in his steps. Look, 

 however, at the progress of zoology since the days of this 

 great master. Take a single genus of insects for instance, 

 Carabus, of which he described fifty-three species, and we 

 find not fewer than two thousand five hundred contained in 

 the single collection of the Baron Dejean, whilst the more 

 minute peculiarities of organization, both internal and ex- 

 ternal, have been studied with the greatest zeal by numerous 



