THE ZooLocist—May, 1875. 4467 
Hemiptera, forty-one of Lepidoptera, seven of Diptera, ten of Hymenoptera, 
and three of Crustacea. In addition to these we have siateen catalogues or 
lists of Molluscous, and four of Radiate animals. Again, we have a series 
of twenty catalogues of exclusively British animals; thus, by separating the 
British from the general collections, the English student has the opportunity 
of acquiring, with less labour, a knowledge of the natural productions of his 
own country. This simple enumeration of catalogues exhibits more clearly 
than can be done by any words of mine, what Dr. Gray accomplished on 
behalf of Natural History in our country, but these catalogues by no means 
comprise the whole of his most useful labours in this direction. In the 
‘Spicilegia Zoologica’ he published original figures and short systematic 
descriptions of new and previously unfigured animals, and these were con- 
tinued in the ‘ Zoological Miscellany,’ a serial having the same style and 
objects. He also contributed the Natural-History portion of the ‘ Voyages 
of the Erebus and Terror,’ only lately completed. Of his various minor 
papers, the list alone—published in 1852—occupies twenty pages in the 
‘ Bibliographia Zoologie’; and the Catalogue of the Royal Society enu- 
merates no less than four hundred and ninety-seven papers from his ever- 
active pen. 
Dr. Gray’s descriptions are almost entirely confined to the exterior; it 
seemed his especial aim to seize on those differences which are the most 
obvious, and would be the first to be noticed by the student when he begins 
to turn his attention to the examination of species; and in that department 
he was successful and lucid. It was perhaps my misfortune to differ from 
him in his view of the paramount value of superficial character, believing, 
as I do, that we should first associate those animals which agree in intimate, 
internal, and physiological characters, and only utilize differences of the 
exterior or extremities in the smaller groups as of genera or species. As 
an instance of the tendency I have mentioned, I believe that Dr. Gray to 
the last persisted in treating the marsupial animals as a section of the Fere, 
or beasts of prey, whilst others have considered these wonderful creatures 
as forming a series equally important with the placental series, and in many 
instances parallel therewith. In this view of the primary importance of 
the marsupial character I always concurred, and hence it was my misfortune 
to differ from one whose knowledge and industry had placed him at the 
very head of the Science. It seems desirable to add that in the expression 
of this view as to the comparatively minor importance of the marsupial 
character, Dr. Gray is supported by the published works of six eminent 
zoologists, enumerated by Mr. Waterhouse in his ‘ Natural History of Mar- 
supialia, or Pouched Animals’: these are Storr, Illiger, Frederic Cuvier, 
Bennett, Swainson and Ogilby. In the work to which I have alluded, 
Mr. Waterhouse has expressed an opinion opposed to that of the eminent 
zoologists I have mentioned, but in exact accordance with my own. Asa 
