588 The Zoologist— February, 1867. 



system is a defective one, but it is mainly upon the principles which 

 it inculcates, as tending to atheism, that I take leave to reject it.* 



Vigors', 1825. The Quinary System, just mentioned, discovered by 

 Macleay in 1818, was elucidated by Vigors in 1825, in a paper " On the 

 Affinities which connect the Orders and Families of Birds" published 

 in the * Transactions of the Linnaean Society.' Enough has been ad- 

 vanced, however, in the last page to show the objections to this system. 

 It embraces five orders of the same denomination as Yarrell's — viz. 

 Raptores, Insessores, Rasores, Grallatores and Nalatores. But uot con- 

 tent with dividing an order into families, genera and species, the author 

 must needs subdivide orders into tribes ; tribes into families : families 

 into sub-families (which in some cases are very numerous); sub-families 

 into genera; and these again iuto species: so that the division seems 

 endless, and is in consequence confusing. This classification in- 

 cludes five orders; five tribes; forty-five families; sixty subfamilies; 

 four hundred and four genera ! the number of species we have not 

 attempted to count. 



Latreille's, 1825. Deux sections ; Ire terrestres; 2me aquatiques ; 

 7 ordres ; 30 fam. ; 252 gen. ! Je crois que c'est un systeme dont 

 on n'a pas fait beaucoup d'usage. On y trouve plusieurs fautes : par 

 exemple, M. Latreillc a place 1c genre Mesange (Denlirostres) en 

 meme famille que le genre Alouelle (Coniroslres). 



Lesson's 1828. Scarcely applicable without much substitution to 

 British birds. 



Fleming's, 1828. 



Order I. Fissipedes. Order II. Palmipedes. 



Tribe I. Tribe II. 



Terrestres, Grallse. 



I 



Sec. I. Auibulatores. Sec. II. Scansores. 



i . i i i 



Gallinadae. Columbidce. Accipitres. Passeres. 



* I have thus dilated upon tbe " Quinary System," because in a recent number of the 

 'Zoologist' it was stated, in a review of my 'Birds of Middlesex,' that I had adopted 

 it in that work. So far from that being the case, I entirely disapprove it. Moreover, 

 I was careful to state, iu the Introduction, whose system it was that I had adopted.— 

 J. E. U. 



