Zi 6 ny THE CLASSIFICATION OF BIRDS. 
logists who do not sufficiently understand their group, to 
bring into its definition all the characters, without dis- 
crimination, that it presents : hence they are led to use a 
number of comparative terms, such as roxtrum mhrec- 
turn, subforte, suhlongHm, &c. — indefinite words which 
perplex the reader before he reaches the truly essential 
character, and encumbers the definition with a multi- 
plicity of unnecessary terms. In monographs, indeed, 
this verbosity can be allowed ; but even there the essential 
characters should be ke])t separate, as a sort of table of 
contents to the more laboured general definition which 
followed. In all this the zoologists of the present day have 
lost sight of the admirable simplicity, and, more than all, 
the masterly perspicuity of Linnaeus. The best and 
neatest generic definitions are those of Temrainck’s Ma- 
nuel : the most verbose and over-laboured, tliose of the 
Species Avium. Even those of Illiger are too tedious. 
The same remarks are equally applicable to specific cha- 
racters : by Linna'us they were made abridged descrip- 
tions of those peculiarities alone which distinguished the 
species, w’ithout noticing others; so that the eye might 
run over and get the substance of twenty of these in the 
same time that would be necessary to read two of those 
in the Species Avium, where, in point of fact, there are no 
true specific characters. We cannot too often insist on the 
daily increasing importance of condensing and simplify- 
ing the details of a science becoming necessarily every 
year more and more extensive, as we gain a greater ac- 
quaintance with the productions of nature. 
(207.) On proceeding to the descriptions of species, 
how'ever, we can scarcely be too minute ; for the essential 
characters by which one may differ from another are 
often so slight, that however they may be perceived on 
comparing the birds together, it is only by minute de- 
tails upon paper, that they can be definitely expressed. 
After the specific character, therefore, has been suc- 
cinctly drawn up and elaborated, w’e should proceed to 
describe, if any, and what, deviation there is from the 
strictly typical form of the group in which we have 
