188 Observations on the 



that which they advocate, is not at the same time more consonant 

 to those scientifick views which ought to direct the naturalist. 



Here however I shall be met by the observation, that the object 

 to which I have just adverted, that of distinguishing the greater 

 group into its characteristick departments, is attained by dividing 

 it into sections, expressive of the leading peculiarities of each. 

 This practice, if generally followed, would decidedly be an im- 

 provement upon the ancient regime : and the partial adoption of 

 it, for it is a gratuitous assumption to say that the strict adherents 

 to the Linnean nomenclature universally adopt it, proves most 

 forcibly the inefficiency of the nomenclature itself, while it retains 

 its original form without any modification, to the purposes of 

 scientifick arrangement. But does this mode of arrangement answer 

 our ideas of the brevity and clearness which should distinguish 

 nomenclature, or correspond with the principles which Linnaeus 

 laid down for that art. Let us suppose, for instance, that we 

 possess two species of the same family of Falconidce ; according to 

 the mode of nomenclature now under consideration, we call them, 

 we will say, Falco albus, belonging to the third section of the 

 genus, and Falco ater, belonging to the fourth ; — is this mode 

 equally simple, equally perspicuous, equally indicative of the 

 natural affinities of the birds before us, as that of denominating 

 them at once by the distinctive names of Astur albus, and Milvus 

 liter? But a serious objection arises to the use of a number in 

 designating a group ; — it must necessarily be subject to variation.* 

 What is the second group at an early period of our knowledge, 

 may be the third at a more advanced stage; an intervening form 

 may arrive to separate two sections, which had before been conter- 

 minous, and the numeral designation of one must consequently 

 be changed. This difficulty has actually been felt, and a partial 

 remedy for it has been adopted. A fixed name has been applied 

 to each section, instead of an inconstant numeral. The names 



* Were the kuowledge of Natural History so far advanced as to enable us 

 to adopt the quinary arrangement suggested by Mr. Macleay, in his " Ilorae 

 Entomologicae," the objection to numeral subdivisions would not exist. The 

 number of every department, or subdepartment would then be determined. 

 But in the present infant state of zoological science we can not look for that 

 piecision which belongs only to a state of perfection. 



