62 



other light, erroneous would be our judgment. Fault 

 has been found with the subdivisions of animals into 

 five gradations, namely, those of Kingdom, Class, 

 Order, Genus, and Species ; in these points I can- 

 not agree with his opponents, as these divisions 

 greatly tend to simplify an artificial classification, 

 although it must be remarked, that in reality none 

 of these gradations actually exist. 



With respect to Nomenclature and Orismology, 

 Linneus has been accused of introducing into his 

 writings a variety of terms not warranted by clas- 

 sical authority. In supporting him on this point, it 

 is only necessary to look to the lengthy and tedious 

 descriptions of animals published by authors ante- 

 cedent to his time. Some of his terms may not be 

 accurately derived from the Greek or Latin, they 

 are however generally so, and sufficiently expressive 

 of the objects intended, and when compared with 

 Fabricius as a writer, or with other authors of that 

 period, he appears quite as the Cicero of his age, 

 while Fabricius is little better than a barbarian. 

 Let any one compare the names of the Orders of the 

 two writers, and then decide on the merits of their 

 respective orismology. As to the Linnean style, it 

 is nervous, expressive, and concise, but in many 

 instances it is too laconic. It will generally be 

 admitted that Linneus had a happy command of 

 language, and no man used it for purposes more 

 successfully. The accuracy and precision of his 

 descriptions rendered Natural History an easy and 

 delightful study, which previously could only have 



