214' ON SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY. 



to adopted; because it is not to be doubted, that our 

 author was totally ignorant of the previous publication 

 of a theory perfectly resembling that worked out by him- 

 self, unaided and unassisted, and solely resulting from the 

 profound study he had devoted to the plants whose na- 

 tural arrangement he wished to understand. We cannot 

 trace, however, either from the valuable paper on this 

 subject by Mr. MacLeay *, or from the work of M. Fries 

 itself, that any new principle or property was made 

 known by the Systema Mycologicum. Those, indeed, 

 which had been previously made known, were much 

 more fully illustrated than in the Horce Entomologies, 

 where two genera only are thoroughly analysed j whereas 

 M. Fries applied his theory to the full investigation of 

 the whole class of Fungi, through all its minor groups 

 or subdivisions. 



(267.) We must now advert to Mr.MacLeay's second 

 or quinary theory, which differs from the first in several 

 important particulars made known in the writings of 

 its author, soon after the publication of M. Fries's work. 

 It is much to be regretted, that these deviations from 

 the principles advocated in the Horce Entomologies 

 were not more clearly stated ; since this circumstance 

 has produced much misapprehension on the part of his 

 disciples, and has obscured rather than illustrated the 

 theory which was to be demonstrated. It is, therefore, 

 with the object of placing the whole in an intelligible 

 light before the student, that we venture to follow up 

 this task. We have seen that, according to our au- 

 thor's first theory, every great circle was connected to 

 that of the same rank which followed it by a smaller 

 circle, so that the animal kingdom was represented by 

 five large and five smaller circles ; the same principle 

 was also stated in regard to the Mandibulata, where the 

 groups are not five, but ten.f These five small or 

 osculant groups are, consequently, essential to the first 

 theory of Mr. MacLeay. But, in his subsequent paper % 3 



* Linn. Trans, vol. xiv. p. 46. f Ib. p. 42. 



J See Hor. Ent. p. 438. 



