184 ON SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY. 
is further remarkable for the number cf new types or 
sub-genera it contains; nearly all of which, however 
ill-defined, are natural, and combined together with an 
evident perception, in many instances, of natural af- 
finities. Our author, it is true, has availed himself 
largely of the valuable labours of Illiger, and has been 
justly censured for doing this without any acknowledg- 
ment of the aid he thus received ; but, in the formation 
of his groups, and the separation of his genera, he has 
evidently not been influenced by the example of ‘his 
more learned predecessor. It will, nevertheless,. be 
unnecessary to give further details of this system; for 
the genera are so loosely defined that they can be only 
understood by a reference to the type (generally a well- 
known bird) which the author quotes. The priority 
of the nomenclature, also, is not to be relied upon ; 
since, in many cases, new names have been given to 
groups previously defined and named by Illiger, Cuvier, 
and others, all of which are made to appear as emanating 
from the author himself. M.'Temminck has publicly 
protested against these plagiarisms, and others have 
spoken of them in terms of severe censure. 
(237.) The system of M. Temminck deserves much 
more attention. Of all those which have been framed 
without a reference to the general laws of the natural 
system, it is decidedly the best. This may appear un-° 
merited praise, when we perceive that the very found. — 
ation, or, in other words, the primary divisions, are 
forced and unnatural. M.Temminck loses sight of the 
groups of Aristotle, and subdivides the leading orders 
of the class into no less than sixteen divisions. These, 
however, when viewed in reference to artificial arrange- 
inent, — and the author is evidently unacquainted with 
any other,—are very clear, and, consequently, excellent. 
The genera, it is true, are few, but they are defined 
with great care, and evince an acquaintance with this 
class of zoology far superior to that possessed by any of 
the moderns. Our author’s forte, indeed, like that of 
Illiger, is detail; but he seems, unfortunately for his 
