Breen 00%" 
Nt i 
in Zoology and Botany. 193 
2. By uniting together groups which are naturally distinct. 
Examples : Harpyia is united with Morphnus; Ibycter with 
Daptrius; Corvinelia, Less. (Lanius flavirostris, Sw.) with 
Lanius ; Cyclarhis with Falcunculus; Psophodes, Sphenura, and 
Dasyornis with Timalia; Mecistura and Calamophilus with 
Parus. The Jodinz are united with Muscicapine ; Corydon, 
Less. (Coracias sumatranus, Raff.) with Eurylaimus ; Cissopis 
with Pitylus; the Furnarine with Certhiane; the Pheenico- 
phainz with Crotophagine ; Dacnis with Nectarinia; the 'Ta- 
matiadz with the Halcyonide ; Syrrhaptes with Pterocles ; the 
Chionidz with the Columbide; the Cracinze and Psophinz 
with Megapodine ; Gallinula (G. chloropus) with Fulica ; Mer- 
gulus and Utamania with Mormon; and Puffinus with Thalas- 
sidroma. 
3. By dividing groups which are naturally united. Exam- 
ples: the Philomelinz are divided from the Sylviane, and the 
- Agelainz from the Icterine. 
4. By raising subordinate groups above their, natural sta- 
tion. Examples: Budytes, a subgenus of Motacilla, is made 
a genus equivalent to Lessonia, Enicurus, and Anthus; Lep- 
tonyx and Plectrophanes, subgenera of Emberiza, are made of 
equal value with the genus Fringilla; Nyctiornis, a subgenus 
of Merops, is put on a par with Coracias ; Lamprotila, a sub- 
genus of Galbula, is made a genus. 
5. By degrading important groups below their natural sta- 
tion. Examples: Circaétus is made a subgenus of Gypogera- 
nus ; Cossypha of Orpheus; Pomatorhinus and Timalia of Ma- 
lacocercus ; Securus of Accentor ; and Blechropus of Fluvicola : 
Rhamphopis is made a subgenus of Tanagra; Euphonia of 
Aglaia; Crithagra and Spermophila of Pyrrhula; Gymno- 
phrys of Manorhina; Pterocles of Tetrao; Apteryx of Stru- 
thio; Alechthelia of Gallinula; Phalaropus of Scolopax; Re- 
curvirostra and Totanus of Himantopus ; Tachydromus of Gla- 
reola; and Phaéton and Rhynchops of Sterna. 
Without pretending to assert that in all the above instances 
my views of the affinities are right and Mr. Swainson’s 
wrong, I will only ask any unbiassed naturalist to examine 
the objects themselves, without reference to books, and then 
say whether, in the majority of the above examples, the true 
order of affinities has not been violated for the sake of sup- 
porting a preconceived theo 
It may be added, that after all these efforts, the system of 
ornithology proposed by Mr. Swainson is very far from being 
a quinary one. Without referring to the very numerous in- 
stances in which his subdivisions fall short of the number 
five, there are several cases in which that number is exceeded. 
Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. Nov. 1840. O 
