Whilst this transfer was going on, and whilst the minds of even 
the advocates of a natural system were, so to speak, in a transition state, 
systematists found it extremely hard to divest themselves of the idea 
of a necessity for an equality in the groups, in the number of their 
subdivisions and types; and hence hastily applied the same terms to very 
unequal groups. For instance, in a natural system we may have two 
great groups of equal value in their relation to the same general arche- 
type; whilst they may be most unequal as regards the number and gene- 
ral value of the more particular types contained beneath themselves. 
I give an example. Suppose that by the terms “class,” ‘‘ order,” 
‘‘family,” we express the following relations :— 
Class.—A number of types agreeing in their general plan, but differ- 
ing in the details of that general plan. 
Order.—A number of types, which, agreeing among themselves in 
many particular details, yet differ in other particular but minor points ; 
and which agree-in general detail with those orders comprised with them 
under the same class. 
Family.—A number of groups of types, which, agreeing in the gene- 
ral plan of the order, yet differ among themselves in certain still more 
particular characters. 
Now every one who has examined in detail the types of a natural sys- 
tem knows that, owing to the mode in which the archetypes and types 
have been developed in time, as at present known, none of our groups 
of major extent comprises the entire of the types which might be ima- 
gined to make it up. Under one class, for instance, we will find four or 
five groups answering to our idea of order; and under these orders, pro- 
bably, as many families; whilst under another class, we meet with, per- 
haps, but one group of ordinal value, the characters which distinguish 
its subdivisions being of such minor importance as not to justify us in 
considering them of higher grade than those divisions which we called 
families in the class first alluded to. Systematists, however, in too many 
instances, through forgetfulness of this fact, have, in such cases as I have 
last described, applied to these minor groups the same term as they 
applied to the more important groups in the former case, and hence a 
system of looseness in the application of terms has arisen, which leads 
to much confusion and embarrassment, especially among students in the 
science. 
The employment of a distinct arbitrary term for each division has the 
further disadvantage of incumbering our class-books with a series of 
names, which, after all, have no fixed value, inasmuch as it 1s necessary, 
in the first place, to learn the exact sense in which the author uses 
them, before we can thoroughly understand their exact value in his 
writings. 
Now it appears that the present nomenclature of type-divisions 
would be much simplified if writers of systems generally, taking a hint 
from what has been already accomplished in the practical working of 
systems in which groups of supposed equal value always have the same 
termination to their name, would, in the first place, abandon the use of 
the terms, class, family, order, tribe, legion, cohort, kingdom, sub-king- 
