NATURAL SYSTEMS. SIACLEAY. 201 



that he has left comparatively little to be done^ as regards 

 the definition of natural genera, by those who come 

 after him. All must admire the acumen, judgment, and 

 extensive knowledge which this celebrated man pos- 

 sessed, and which shines forth in the admirable manner 

 in which he grouped those objects which were his pecu- 

 liar study. Yet, while we do justice to his memory in 

 this respect, we must reprobate those atheistical theories, 

 no less impious than absurd, which he has introduced 

 in his writings, — theories which are inconsistent with 

 his own words, and which are too ridiculous even to be 

 repeated. 



(257-) The circular system of MacLeay, as following 

 in the order of succession, is now to be noticed. We have 

 seen that Lamarck, so far back as 1815, had not only po- 

 sitively declared his conviction that the natural series was 

 neither simple nor linear, but that he had given a table 

 indicating a union of all the large divisions of the animal 

 world ; but this, after all, was but the first glimpse of 

 these important discoveries regarding the fundamental 

 principles of the natural system which were first made 

 known by the Horce Entomologicce. Lamarck, like- 

 wise, although he partially traced the animal circle, had 

 no true perceptions of the course it was taking. His 

 table, in fact, was not unlike an architectural drawing, 

 where the great rules of perspective had been pretty 

 well adhered to, but which rules could not be ex- 

 plained by the artist upon their true principle, having 

 been drawn merely by the help of a remarkably accu- 

 rate eye. Here, then, is one of the chief merits of 

 the system of Lamarck, a system which must certainly 

 be considered as the first promulgation of any uni- 

 versal law in natural classification. 



(258.) The Horee Entomologicce, unluckily for stu- 

 dents, can only be thoroughly understood by the adept, 

 since the results and observations are explained in dif- 

 ferent parts, the style is somewhat desultory, and the 

 groups, for the most part, are rather indicated than defined. 

 The whole, in short, is what it professes to be, more a 



