PRELIMINARY NOTICES. 



columbid, cygnine, galbule, scolopacid, &c. Besides, as every 

 scientific term is explained either in the glossary or at the 

 foot of the page in which it is used, the complaint of the 

 introduction of new terms loses much of its force; had such 

 explanation been omitted the objection to their introduc- 

 tion would appear more specious, although not decisive 

 even then, against their use. 



Ornithologia was written for the uninitiated, the Plea- 

 sures of Ornithology for those whose tastes and whose 

 science require no such initiatory method as that adopted 

 in Ornithologia ; yet, by some perversity, one of our jour- 

 nalists has complained of the last production as fc something 

 too much of the subject." Really these critics remind one 

 of the fable of the old man, his son, and the ass : it is evi- 

 dently impossible to please them. 



While, again, one says "do not separate the poetry from 

 the prose ;" another says " you ought not to attempt to com- 

 bine them." Another says, the poetry is a "failure :" it is 

 asked, a failure to do what? — to teach more effectually the 

 science of ornithology ? If it does not fail to do this, with 

 humble submission to Messrs. the Critics, it is not a failure. 

 Another says, that Darwin failed on a similar subject ; and 

 another, that the attempt would have floored the genius of 

 Byron. 



That Darwin failed to render his work popular by his 

 method of handling his subject, there can be no doubt 5 but 

 that he failed in his object in writing the Botanic Garden, is 

 more than we are warranted in assuming. That By ion 

 might have failed on a similar subject, is very possible ; 

 chiefly, it is presumed, because he would not have conde- 

 scended to that familiarity and simplicity which appears 

 necessary to success. In what has the author of Ornitho- 

 logia failed ? He has stated, that his object was to render 



b2 



