IN NATURAL HISTORY. 435 



all surprised, when I reflect (and how melancholy is that re- 

 flection!) that whilst on the continent naturalists are engaged 

 in a constant search after, and a careful examination of, facts, 

 whilst they are diligently adding to our knowledge of animals, 

 both as relates to their structure and economy, nothing attracts 

 attention in this country but theory ; and wild indeed must be 

 that theory which does not obtain numerous followers amongst 

 our would-be philosophers. 



I doubt not but that this will be disagreeable to most of 

 your contributors, for I find amongst all of them, from the 

 leading ones who write purely original papers, to the minor fry 

 who only venture to criticise or to abridge, the same cant about 

 natural genera, although the artificial nature of such combina- 

 tions has been fully pointed out by Dr. Fleming, in his admi- 

 rable Philosophy of Zoology, Vol. II. p. 140, where he proves 

 that natural genera, as they are called, are in reality artificial 

 combinations, which is proved by the genus Lepus being 

 reckoned a most natural genus, whilst the two last known 

 species, the hare and the rabbit, are, as he clearly points out, 

 more nearly allied, the former to the horse, the latter to the 

 fox, than they are to one another. 



The mention of Dr. Fleming s name naturally calls to our 

 mind the Dichotomous system, the only one that can be con- 

 sidered to be at all conclusive and of any service to the lover 

 of nature. The ridicule that has been attempted to be thrown 

 on this system, and the approving nod that Mr. Newman has 

 given to that attack, induce me here just to shew that the 

 Dichotomous system is founded on nature, and that it is free 

 from all the inconvenience and confusion which even the 

 staunchest advocates of the Quinarian, Trinarian, or Sep- 

 tenary systems allow to exist in their favourites. 



If we take a considerable number of species and carefully 

 examine them, we shall find that one portion of them has 

 some character in common which is wanting in the rest ; thus 

 aflbrding us a positive and a negative character. Thus in 

 insects we have the Mandibulata and Haustdlata, in Crus- 

 tacea, the Gymnohranches and Cryptobranches of Lamarck 

 (an author to whom I refer with regret, from the infidel ten- 

 dency of his doctrines). A similar dichotomy is admitted by 

 Lamarck in the AracJmida, namely, into Arachnides palpistes, 

 tubiferes, and Arachnides palpistes and tenaillcs, to say 



