298 
POPULARITY OF NATURAL HISTORY. 
Natural History, that, to become a perfect adept in any single division, demands 
the untiring study of a life, and, however anxious an observer may be to master 
the difficulties around him, they become at last almost insuperable. The num¬ 
ber who from ability or inclination can devote their whole time to any study, 
must always be very limited, because ardour and enthusiasm, however active, 
must of necessity have bounds prescribed them by duty. Consequently authors, 
instead of perpetually coining new terms, and throwing confusion and uncertainty 
around them, should not forget to have the interests of those in view who, 
anxious for knowledge, are yet utterly unable, from want of time, to follow the 
professor into all the labyrinths his minute investigations may have led him. 
The result is obvious: empirical knowledge must be seized, as the enquirer 
finds no other path open before him, and a disgust for technical nomenclature is 
engendered, which it may be afterwards difficult to get rid of. “To discover the 
name of a species, is the ultimate object which all amateurs,” says Mr. Swain- 
son, “ and many professed naturalists have in view.* To do this by merely 
turning over the plates of a zoological work is manifestly a short and easy road 
to knowledge; but the superficial acquaintance thus obtained, however convenient 
and useful upon many occasions, will not satisfy the true naturalist.’’t It is re¬ 
markable that almost every “true naturalist” inveighs against this “ short and easy 
road to knowledge,” as if there was something almost criminal in recognizing a 
bird by its figure in a good plate, and an insect or plant by an accurate coloured 
representation. I never could perceive the wisdom of this deprecation, for a 
figure often gives information where language is found quite inadequate. Some 
naturalists affect to think that to ascertain the name of any object is quite a 
secondary thing, but it is really the first step, and nothing can be done satisfac¬ 
torily without it. A novice might justly think light of an observer of whom he 
demanded the name of a plant or insect, if he could only answer in general terms 
that it belonged to some particular group, but what species it was he could not 
say. Yet Mr. Swainson admits that, “ in the present paucity of good elementary 
books,” if a young inquirer into Entomology “ succeeds so far as to ascertain the 
genus of his insect, he may consider himself very fortunate.” With such 
* This is not quite correct, but it must be obvious, that until the name of an object be made 
out, no information can be given respecting it, and a perplexing dubiousness rests upon the mind. 
Many naturalists seem strongly to object to the name of a species being discovered by the student 
in an “ easy way,” as if a person was not more likely to pay attention to the minutiae of an object 
whose piame he was certain of, rather than to direct his attention to what he was entirely un¬ 
acquainted with. Iiow often in the works of non-scientific travellers one has to lament that they 
could not tell us the names of objects they saw, instead of a mysterious and tantalizing statement 
as to quadrupeds, birds, plants, &c., the species of which want of knowledge rendered them unable 
to determine, and which their imperfect descriptions will not permit us to unravel, 
t Swainson’s Gcog, and Classific, of Animals , p, 353. 
