138 ON SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY. 
tinct order, are, unquestionably, a part only of the Neu- 
voptera. This will be apparent to any one who analyses 
and studies these groups in detail, and with the requi- 
site degree of attention. It is clear, also, from the 
above table, that Aristotle perceived, theoretically, the 
two great divisions of Insecta, namely, the Ptilota, or 
winged group, and the Aptera, or wingless insects. It 
would, indeed, have been surprising, if, with the few 
dozen of insects which in all probability formed the 
scanty materials that guided his judgment, he had not 
greatly erred in the application of his theory: seeing that 
in almost every family group there are representations 
of the apterous classes: but this is a very minor con~ 
sideration, and detracts nothing from his astonishing 
talent, in thus anticipating, in part, the discoveries of 
eighteen centuries. It must ever redound to the fame 
of Linneus, that he followed so closely the footsteps of 
the Grecian sage; for his entomological system, above 
all others, comes nearest to that of Aristotle, and, in our 
estimation, nearest to that of Nature. Whether we are 
right in this opinion, time only will discover. 
(189.) The zoological system of Willughby, as given 
by Ray, cannot be passed over in this place, although we 
are by no means disposed to unite in the high encomiums 
which have lately been bestowed upon it. In the 
classification of the Mammalia we trace nothing of 
primary importance which had escaped the penetration 
of Aristotle, unless it be the true character of the Glires, 
or mouse-like quadrupeds.* The arrangement of the 
birds, viewed in connection with the injudicious addi- 
tions of Ray, is any thing but clear, definite, or na- 
tural ; while that of insects, as exhibited by Mr. Kirby f, 
and here presented to the reader, has no very high ex- 
cellency. Both this and Swammerdam’s are founded 
too exclusively upon metamorphoses ; and by this un- 
fortunate bias entomology made a retrograde movement. 
The primary groups of Aristotle were broken up, and 
the following artificial arrangement was the result : — 
* Linn. Trans. vol. xvi. p. 25. 
