in Zoology and Botany. 



]93 



2. By uniting together groups which are naturally distinct. 

 Examples : Harpyia is united with Morphnus ; Ibycter with 

 Daptrius; Corvinella, Less. (Lanius flavirostris, Sw.) with 

 Lanius ; Cyclarhis with Falcunculus ; Psophodes, Sphenura. and 

 Dasyornis with Timalia ; Mecistura and Calamophilus with 

 Parus. The Iodinae are united with Muscicapinae ; Corydon, 

 Less. (Coracias sumatranus, Raff.) with Eurylaimus; Cissopis 

 with Pitylus ; the Furnarinae with Certhianae ; the Phcenico- 

 phainae with Crotophaginae ; Dacnis with Nectarinia ; the Ta- 

 matiadae with the Halcyonidae ; Syrrhaptes with Pterocles ; the 

 Chionidaa w ith the Columbidae ; the Cracinae and Psophinae 

 with Megapodinae ; Gallinula (G. chloropus) with Fulica ; Mer- 



and Utamania with Mormon ; and Puffinus with Thalas- 

 sidroma. 



3. By dividing groups which are naturally united. Exam- 

 ples : the Philomelinae are divided from the Sylvianae, and the 

 Agelainae from the Icterinae. 



4. By raising subordinate groups above their natural sta- 

 tion. Examples : Budytes, a subgenus of Motacilla, is made 

 a genus equivalent to Lessonia, Enicurus, and Anthus ; Lep- 

 tonyx and Plectrophanes, subgenera of Emberiza, are made of 

 equal value with the genus Fringilla ; Nyctiornis, a subgenus 

 of Merops, is put on a par with Coracias ; Lamprotila, a sub- 

 genus of Galbula, is made a genus. 



5. By degrading important groups below their natural sta- 

 tion. Examples : Circaetus is made a subgenus of Gypogera- 

 nus; Cossypha of Orpheus; Pomatorhinus and Timalia of Ma- 

 lacocercus ; Securus of Accentor ; and Blechropus of Fluvicola : 

 Rhamphopis is made a subgenus of Tanagra ; Euphonia of 

 Aglaia ; Crithagra and Spermophila of Pyrrhula ; Gymno- 

 phrys of Manorhina ; Pterocles of Tetrao ; Apteryx of $/r&- 

 //wo ; Alechthelia of Gallinula ; Phalaropus of Scolopax ; ite- 

 curvirostra and Totanus of Himantopus ; Tachydromus of G/<z- 

 reo/# ; and Phaeton and Rhynchops of Sterna. 



Without pretending to assert that in all the above instances 

 my views of the affinities are right and Mr. Swainson's 

 wrong, I will only ask any unbiassed naturalist to examine 

 the objects themselves, without reference to books, and then 

 say whether, in the majority of the above examples, the true 

 order of affinities has not been violated for the sake of sup- 

 porting a preconceived theory. 



It may be added, that after all these efforts, the system of 

 ornithology proposed by Mr. Swainson is very far from being 

 a quinary one. Without referring to the very numerous in- 

 stances in which his subdivisions fall short of the number 

 five, there are several cases in which that number is exceeded, 



Ann. § Mag. Nat. Hist. Nov. 1840. o 



