ORNITHOLOGY. 
764 
the editors could have accefs, either in the living or pre- 
ferved ftate, or of which they could be favoured with 
drawings. 
Mauduyt’s Dictionary of Ornithology, which makes 
part of the Encyclopedic Methodique, deferves to be par¬ 
ticularly quoted, on account of the preliminary difcourfes, 
the accuracy of the defcriptions and references, and 
the correCt execution of the plates. 
A feries of fplendid plates was executed at Florence, 
in illuftration of Gerini’s Ornithology ; but they betray 
in general a difregard of nature, and are in many in¬ 
ftances merely copied from imperfeCt drawings or in¬ 
accurate engravings. Gerini’s nomenclature is like- 
wife very faulty, and too frequently confounds fpecies 
and varieties. 
In 1773, the ingenious and indefatigable Mr. Pennant 
publiflied a fmall volume, entitled “Genera of Birds.” 
In his preface, he enters into a minute account of the 
external parts of birds, their feathers, flight, nidifica- 
tion, &c. In his feleCtion of fyflematic arrangement, 
he gives the preference to that of Ray, wliofe plan ap¬ 
pears to him to be fo judicious, that it is fcarcely pof- 
flble to make any change in it for the better. 
In 1781, Mr. Latham commenced his “ General Synop- 
fls of Birds,” a work of much accurate detail, and ex¬ 
tending to three double quarto volumes, with two of Sup¬ 
plement. Admitting the primary diviflon of Ray, he 
adheres with a few exceptions to the Linnaean genera, 
which, as well as the fpecies, his opportunities of re- 
fearch enabled him to multiply to a very confiderable 
amount. Each genus is illuftrated by one coloured cop¬ 
per-plate at lealt, ulually of fome rare fpecies. Of thefe 
plates, however, the execution is fometimes coarfe or 
meagre; and candour will not permit us to compliment 
the author on the purity or correCtnefs of his ftyle. Mr. 
Latham is likewife the author of an Index Ornithologicus, 
which forms a convenient cornpend of his larger work, 
being comprifed in two quarto volumes. Upon the whole, 
the works of this laborious author contain a vaft collec¬ 
tion of fails and defcriptions, and muft always hold a 
diftinguilhed place in the library of the ornithologift. 
Of the numerous writers who have treated of the birds 
of particular countries, we fhall fil'd mention Monf. Se- 
baltian Gerardin de Mirecourt, who a few years ago 
publiflied an “ Elementary View of Ornithology, or the 
Natural Hiftory of thofe Birds which ufually occur in 
France,” &c. This gentleman appears to have been 
born and bred in the department of the Voges, in which he 
difcharged the duties of profeflor of natural hiltory, and 
which is known to contain a greater diverfity of the 
feathered race than almoft any province in Europe. 
His preliminary difcourfe explains the general topics of 
ornithology in language at once fuccinfit and perfpicuous. 
The five chapters of which it confifts were fubmitted to 
the revifion of the ellimable Daudin, whofe premature 
death his friends and fcience will long deplore. The ar¬ 
rangement of the work, which is limited to two oCtavo 
volumes, and a thin quarto volume of plates, has been 
chiefly regulated by that of Cuvier, in his Sketch of the 
Natural Hiftory of Animals. His fynonymy is that of 
Linnaeus and Brifl'on ; and his defcriptions are generally 
minute, diftinCt, and accurate. The engravings are 
chiefly valuable on account of the correCtnefs of the out¬ 
lines. 
Francis Hernandez, a Spanifti phyfician, has defcribed 
the birds of Mexico. His work confifts of 229 chapters, 
each of which, generally, treats of a Angle fpecies. As 
they are, however, defigned only by their Mexican names, 
and defcribed with too much brevity, their precife ftations 
in the Linnaean arrangement are with difficulty afcer- 
tained. Similar objections apply to the work of Nurem¬ 
berg, who has defcribed the birds of the fame country. 
From both we may infer, that the feathered tribes in 
Mexico are numerous, and diverfified with the moll bril¬ 
liant colouring ; and that the natives had made confider¬ 
able progrefs in the ftudy of their hiftory. 
Brafil prefents a ftill more rich and fplendid field to the 
relearches of the ornithologift; but Marcgrave, who 
profefles to delineate its natural hiftory, and allots his 
fifth book to the birds, is not lefs defective than the two 
writers whom we have juft mentioned. His plates are not 
only wretchedly executed, but frequently do not corref- 
pond with the defcriptions. 
Sir Hans Sloane, in his Hiftory of Jamaica, has repre- 
fented 44 fpecies of birds, in 18 plates, annexed to the 
fecond volume ; but it is feldom that the reader can rely 
on the accuracy of his delineations. 
To Mr. Mark Catelby, of the Royal Society, we are in¬ 
debted for an excellent account of the birds of Carolina, 
Florida, and the Bahama iflands, in French and Engliffi. 
The firft volume, and part of the appendix to the fecond, 
of his “ Natural Hiftory of Carolina,” are devoted to the 
birds. The defcriptions are concife and perfpicuous, and 
accompanied with fome interefting notices relative to the 
manners and habits of the fpecies defcribed. The plates, 
which are numerous, are generally faithful reprefenta- 
tions of the originals, and admirably well coloured. The 
method followed in thefe fplendid volumes approaches 
fomewhat to that of Willoughby. 
Schwenckfeld, a phyfician, who publiflied, in 1603, a 
Natural Hiftory of Siberia, in two quarto volumes, in¬ 
cludes the birds in his fourth book. His enumeration 
and defcription of the parts which belong to birds in 
common with other animals, and of the appropriate parts 
of the organization of the former, are neat and accurate. 
His differences, founded on habitation, food, &c. are 
lefs valuable. The introduction is followed by the enu¬ 
meration of birds, in alphabetical order, according to 
their Latin names. The defcriptions, though accurate, 
are for the moft part too lhort; and, though adequate 
to recal a bird already known, are not l'ufficient to con¬ 
vey a precife notion of thofe which are defcribed for the 
firft time. The hiftorical portion is too much con- 
denfed ; and, with faCts which are calculated to excite in- 
tereft, the author often blends fuch as are fuperfluous or 
improbable. 
M. Brunnich publiflied, in 1764, an Account of the 
Birds of Denmark, and the neighbouring iflands and 
provinces. In moft inftances he follows the Linnaean 
nomenclature, and fometimes the fynonymy of Brifl'on. 
He chiefly dwells on the rare and non-defcript fpecies, but 
even then feldom enters fufficiently into detail to enable 
the lludent to afcertain the fpecies in queftion. 
M. Sonnerat, a correfponding member of the Royal 
Academy of Sciences of Paris, publiflied, in 1776, an 
account of his Voyage to New Guinea, the Molucca and 
Philippine Iflands, the Ifle of France, and fome other 
iflands, in the Indian Ocean ; and, in 1783, he favoured 
the world with a relation of his Second Voyage to feveral 
parts of the Eaft Indies and China. Though this zealous 
and learned naturalift was prevented by want of time 
from forming very extenfive collections, his defcrip¬ 
tions and defigns manifeft both accuracy and tafte. 
Befides correcting the errors of former travellers and 
voyagers, he has noticed a confiderable number of birds 
for the firft time, and moft of them remarkable either 
for their Angularity or beauty. His account of the wild 
cock and hen, the origin of our common domeftic fowl, 
will be perufed with peculiar intereft. 
The fplendid work of Frifch, a German naturalift, 
chiefly confifts of coloured plates of the birds of Europe, 
arranged in 12 clafles, according to diltinCtions which are 
fometimes vague and incommodious. The figures are 
for the moft part accurate and lively reprefentations from 
nature, though in fome inftances they are larger than 
the life. The author has bellowed particular attention 
on the different colourings of the two fexes of the fame 
fpecies. 
M, 
