﻿CRITICAL REMARKS. NOMENCLATURE. 201 



are denned with great accuracy, and with that high 

 degree of finishing, which leads us the more to regret 

 that his genera are comparatively so few. His reform- 

 ation in the nomenclature was most extensive, without 

 being, in hardly one instance, uncalled for; and he 

 purified the science of a host of barbarous appellations 

 which were scarcely worse than those revived and in- 

 vented by some modern French writers in this depart- 

 ment. They are, in short, the reformations of a 

 profound naturalist and an accomplished scholar ; and 

 as they obviously have not proceeded from selfish 

 vanity, so they have been universally adopted. The 

 groups of M. Cuvier are in general good, but they are 

 in many cases so loosely defined, that the mere student 

 would never be able to detect them, were it not for the 

 familiar examples under each, which he has either 

 named or described. His characters have been taken 

 almost exclusively from the bill and feet, not with 

 reference to the food or the habits of the bird, but 

 merely as to the form of these members; while the 

 different modifications in the structure of the wings and 

 tail are very rarely noticed. M. Vieillot first perceived 

 the importance of these characters ; and, although no 

 great praise can be given, in other respects, to his de- 

 finitions, the introduction of the characters we allude to 

 enables us to determine his genera, — which, for the most 

 part are natural, — much better than could otherwise have 

 been done. It must also be remembered that this au- 

 thor's "Analyse," is in fact but a synopsis of his 

 system, which is given more at length in another work 

 hereafter noticed, and where he has defined the greater 

 part of his new genera much more fully, and with con- 

 siderable tact and ability. To M. Temminck's system 

 we have already given due praise, so far as concerns the 

 definition of the very few new genera it contains, and 

 which are mostly so remarkable that they could not be 

 well passed over. M. Temminck, however, does not 

 attempt to grapple with the more difficult and intricate 

 groups, such as the old genera Picus, Psittacus, Sylvia, 



