33 



owned that most of his changes are improvements on it, and in 

 conformity with the natural arrangement of beings. The labour, 

 patience, and science shown by the author are deserving of the 

 greatest praise. After having said all the good I think of this 

 great work, I must also submit a few critical observations on it. 

 Many of Dr. G-unther's superior divisions are established only 

 on anatomical characters, and I think this most objectionable, as 

 it would exclude from the study of science all those who would 

 not have at their entire disposition one of the large museums of 

 Europe, and even the fortunate zoologists who are so situated 

 can only, in comparatively few instances, sacrifice valuable 

 specimens. I think that anatomical characters ought only to be 

 used to confirm zoological ones. 



Dr. Grunther, in most cases, prefers describing the colours 

 from the discoloured specimens he has at his disposition sooner 

 than adopting the description of travellers who have seen the 

 sorts alive, and in many cases have made drawings from speci- 

 mens so taken. For instance, Phractoceplialus Hemiliopterus is 

 described as a fish of obscure tinges, when he had my plate 

 under his eyes, showing its beautiful colours, drawn from the 

 living specimen. 



He changes the names, derived from Greek or Latin, that he 

 considers badly composed, and this I think useless, as it only 

 increases synonymy unnecessarily. If men with the high literary 

 acquirements of Lacepede and Cuvier have committed such mis- 

 takes, no one can expect to be exempt from them, and as names 

 without any meaning are just as good, if not better, than those 

 which pretend to have one. If a name is not well made, it is 

 more simple, I think, to consider it as having no meaning at all, 

 than to introduce a new one into the nomenclature. 



Dr. Gfunther divides the species admitted by his predecessors 

 into two classes — those that he considers well characterized, and 

 those that he regards as doubtful ; he only gives descriptions 

 of the first, which have almost all been seen by himself; and as 

 to the others, it is necessary to resort to the original works, as 

 amongst them a very large proportion have just as good a right 

 to be maintained as those he admits. He must be approved 

 of for rejecting, till further examination, all sorts estabb'shf i 

 on figures and drawings only. Lacepede was the first to 



