﻿ERRONEOUS DEFINITIONS OF SPECIES. 1 97 



very lately, been the universal custom to confine the 

 description of a bird to its size and colour, as if the 

 peculiar modification of its bill, wings, and feet (the 

 most important of all characters) were either unde- 

 serving of attention, or were sufficiently explained in 

 the generic character, which character, as we have 

 already seen, was often violated at every point, There 

 are, perhaps, fifty warblers to which the description of 

 " Olive above, yellowish beneath, bill and feet dusky/* 

 is perfectly applicable, and yet each are not only dif- 

 ferent species, but of widely different genera. The 

 same remark is, in a less degree, applicable to the tyrant 

 flycatchers (Tyrannince) , the drongo shrikes (Edolince), 

 and some other groups, where the greater part of the 

 species are clothed in nearly the same coloured plumage. 

 To identify such birds is utterly impossible. When, 

 indeed, these happened to be figured, however rudely, 

 as in the Planches Enluminees, we may be allowed to 

 guess what is meant ; but even then, in many instances, 

 from the carelessness or inaccuracy of the artist, such 

 figures must be quoted with a mark of doubt. But 

 when, as in numberless instances, these descriptions 

 rest only upon mere private drawings, or on loose de- 

 scriptions, there is no alternative but to pass them 

 over in silence. It has been well observed, that, in a 

 science which requires the nicest examination and the 

 most scrupulous accuracy, u a bad or imperfect de- 

 scription is worse than none/' The remark, although 

 severe, is yet perfectly just ; yet, were it strictly acted 

 upon, we should have to expunge from the general 

 systems four-fifths of the species therein contained. 

 From the above facts we may therefore draw this in- 

 ference, that in proportion to the number of division 

 or genera, as they are called, in any work professing to 

 be a general system of ornithology — so are we to esti- 

 mate its usefulness and its authority in modern orni- 

 thology, provided of course that these divisions are 

 clearly defined, and are founded on tangible characters. 

 We have no doubt that very many of the birds which 

 o 3 



