184 ON SYSTEJIATIC ZOOLOGY. 



is further remarkable for the number of new types or 

 sub-genera it contains ; nearly all of which, however 

 ill-definedj are natural, and combined together with an 

 evident perception, in many instances, of natural af- 

 finities. Our authoi*, 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- 

 ment, — 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, hke that of 

 Illiger, is detail ; but he seems, unfortunately for his 



