In addition to what has been faid, I fhall beg leave 
to give a quotation from the learned author men¬ 
tioned at the beginning of this paper, as a curious 
indance of the peculiar exaftnefs and deep fpecula- 
tions of that celebrated writer. 
€C Moreover if we concede that the animals of one 
fc element might bear the names of thofe in the 
€f other, yet in drift reafon the watery productions 
fc fhould have the prenomination : and they of the 
land rather derive their names from, than nomi- 
nate, thofe of the fea. For the watery plantations 
ff were fird exident, and as they enjoyed a priority 
ff in form, had alfo in nature precedent denomina- 
<( tions ; but falling not under that nomenclature of 
ff Adam, w hich unto terredrious animals affigned a 
Cf name appropriate unto their natures; from fuc- 
€C ceeding fpeftators they received arbitrary appel- 
(( lations; and w r ere refpeftively denominated unto 
ff creatures known at land ; who in themfelves had 
Cf independent names, and not to be called after 
them which were created before them.” 
