TRANSACTIONS OF THE SECTIONS. 441 



that in constructing them sufficient attention had not always 

 been paid to the true principles of classification. It was par- 

 ticularly stated that in this country zoologists had very much 

 overlooked the principle which determines that all groups bear- 

 ing the same title should be groups of the same value ; and 

 that in raising to the rank of genera the subgenera of the 

 French, they put these last on the same footing with groups of 

 a higher denomination, to which in strict reality they were 

 subordinate. Instances were brought forward from amongst 

 the genera of British birds, in which this disregard to a due 

 subordination of groups was particularly manifest. It was 

 mentioned that in this way Plectroplianes was made a group of 

 equal value with Emberiza, Lagoptis with Tetrao, Coturnix with 

 Perdix, and Botaurus with Ardea, although it might be clearly 

 seen, that in each of these instances the first group rested on 

 characters far less important and less numerous than those 

 which were common to the two considered as one genus. 



Some remarks were then made on the method of ascertaining 

 the value of any new group that presents itself. It was ob- 

 served, that to fix this with certainty required a previous ac- 

 quaintance with all the other existing groups belonging to the 

 same family, and that therefore it can only be determined so 

 far as the present state of our knowledge of that family will 

 allow. If it be found on comparison that its characters are of 

 equal value with those of other acknowledged genera in that 

 family, the group in question may be considered as a genus 

 also ; but if of less, it is clear that the group itself is one of 

 less importance, and must occupy a subordinate station. 



The author concluded with pointing out the impropriety of 

 splitting up natural genera, as had been done in some cases, 

 merely because they contained a large number of species. He 

 stated that the value of a group was not aflTected by such a 

 circumstance ; furthermore, that no groups should exist in our 

 systems but such as exist in nature ; and that for the mere 

 purpose of abridging labour in the search after particular spe- 

 cies, it was quite sufficient in the case of extensive genera to 

 institute sectional divisions, indicating such sections by signs. 



On some parts of the Natural History of the Common Toad. 

 By James Macartney, M.D., F.R.S. 



After commenting upon the unfounded prejudices against the 

 whole class of reptiles, and the toad in particular, the author 

 corrects an error concerning the mode of feeding of the toad — 

 into which even Linnaeus had fallen — that the Hies are attracted 



