IN NATURAL HISTORY. 437 



wild theorists should be a Scotchman), maintaining that all 

 groups in nature were resolvable into five smaller ones, or that 

 if there appeared to be more or less than that number it arose 

 from our ignorance of the true nature of that group. 



Mr. Vigors next took it up, and attempted to apply quina- 

 rianism to birds ; but here he utterly failed, though I 

 cannot join with Mr. Newman in considering that failure as a 

 proof of the truth of his system, but, on the contrary, am 

 induced to look upon Dr. Fleming's arrangement as the only 

 perfect one. Soon after Mr. Newman proclaimed his number 

 seven to be the only natural and scriptural one ; but more of 

 him hereafter. I must first say a few words to the champion 

 of number three, Mr. Swainson, undoubtedly an excellent 

 naturalist, but grievously led away by theory. 



I wish to ask him in what way he would divide Mammalia, 

 reptiles, fishes, or the annulose animals, each into three equal 

 groups ; how, in particular, he would divide insects ; what his 

 three main divisions in that group would consist of; and then 

 the divisions into which each of these are resolvable. 



Now, to return to Mr. Newman's book; notwithstanding 

 the extensive circulation and great consideration into which it 

 has risen, owing to the morbid propensity of our present race 

 of naturalists to run after wild and vague theories and to 

 desert truth, I firmly believe that it would have been better for 

 the cause of true science that it should have been burnt by the 

 hands of the common hangman. 



After asserting that MacLeay is right as to the circular 

 arrangement of groups, the author says that he is still in want 

 of some number to allot them by, and then jumps at the con- 

 clusion that seven is the right and scriptural one ; a main 

 reason for thinking so, being, that Cuvier formerly divided 

 animals into seven groups, but had subsequently renounced 

 that number for four. Another reason is that he can find 

 amongst Mammalia, Aves, or Insects, no possible way of 

 making eight equal groups out of them ; but here let me ask, 

 are there no such orders, or, as he very properly wishes them 

 to be called, classes, as Dermaptera, Strepsiptera, Hymen- 

 optera ? Again, are there but six groups of equal rank to 

 Vertebrata, whilst he allows forty-nine of equal rank to Mam- 

 malia? Let the author answer these questions if he can. 



The remarks Mr. Newman makes about the distinction 



