CUVIEBIAN SYSTEM. BIRDS. 177 



(227.) On comparing this ornithological system 

 with that of Linnaeus, there are several features which 

 require separate consideration. First, as to the grand 

 divisions of the class j the unaccountable error of Lin- 

 naeus, in separating the aquatic orders by the intervention 

 of the land birds, is avoided, and the five leading groups, 

 recognised in the natural system, are preserved. Unfor- 

 tunately, however, the climbing families have been de- 

 tached from the Insessores, and elevated to a rank they 

 do not, in reality, hold. This departure, however, from 

 the views of Linnaeus, is a matter of no moment in an 

 artificial system, but rather an advantage ; since it 

 tends to bring this remarkable group more immediately 

 under the eye of the general reader. Another great 

 advantage apparent in this system, is the formation of 

 families, or groups intermediate in rank between orders 

 and genera. In the days of Linnaeus, the birds then 

 known were so few that these intervening divisions 

 were not necessary, and they were consequently omitted. 

 Here, however, the merits of the system before iis 

 terminates. For although the whole is interspersed 

 with original and valuable anatomical remarks, and 

 additions to correct nomenclature, the fitting in of the 

 genera (if we may be allowed the expression) is not 

 only unnatural,' and consequently erroneous, but at vari- 

 ance with the plan of the work ; namely, that of an 

 arrangement founded upon natural organisation. The 

 whole is like a building, of which most of the ma- 

 terials, in themselves, are good ; but which, by some 

 unaccountable mistake of the architect, are combined 

 in such a way as to produce any thing but that beauty 

 and order which might have been expected. The 

 ornithological labours of M. Cuvier, in short, do not 

 appear to us to have effected either the establishment 

 of an artificial system, or the advancement of the na- 

 tural system. This truth has been so often repeated, 

 even by those who have done ample justice to his high 

 and distinguished merits as a comparative anatomist., 



