62

MISCELLANEOUS INTELLIGENCE.

ART. I. Retrospective Criticism.

OBSERVATIONS on Classification, in reference to the Essays of Messrs. Jenyns (VI. 385.), Newman (481.), and Blyth (485.). -Sir, The two great defects of modern systems appear to be, the want of simplicity and of uniformity; and I cannot but think that both these may be in great measure attained, without any violence being offered to the "natural system."

Mr. Jenyns (VI. 385-390.) appears to have blended together two distinct causes of complaint: first, that in modern systems genera are founded upon characters of unequal value (e. g. Emberiza and Plectróphanes); and, secondly, that several genera are placed in the same family, certain of which are more nearly allied to each other than they are to the remaining ones (e. g. Tétrao, Lagopus, Pérdix, Coturnix). In making the first complaint, Mr. Jenyns seems to have overlooked the fact, that, when a systematist separates a new genus from an old one, he must necessarily restrict the characters of the old genus, as well as establish those of the new; or else the species in question might be referred as correctly to one genus as the other. Linnæus founded the genus Emberìza on a peculiar form of the bill. He is silent concerning the other characters of the bird. Now, if we define the genus Plectrophanes to possess that peculiar bill and a long hind-claw, it is plain that we must add to our definition of Emberìza the character of having a short hind-claw. When this is done, the two genera become of equal value, be the number of species in each what it may, since they are founded on characters of equal importance, and they are therefore no longer liable to Mr. Jenyns's objection. Whether the characters of these groups are of sufficient value to constitute genera, is another question; and I fully agree with Mr. Jenyns in deprecating the practice of multiplying genera ad infinitum upon the most trivial and unimportant characters.

Let us now turn to Mr. Jenyns's second cause of complaint. The genera Tétrao and Pérdix, if restricted as shown above, may be rendered of the same value as their offsets Lagopus and Coturnix; but still Lagòpus will be more nearly related

to Tetrao than to Pérdix. If we place these genera, as Mr. Newman (p. 484.) proposes, in two distinct families of Rasòres, viz., Tetraónidæ and Perdícidæ, still these two will be more nearly connected with each other than they are with Phasiánidæ, or any other collateral family. Or if we follow Mr. Blyth (p. 487.), in making them into subfamilies, Tetraònæ and Perdiciànæ, of the family Tetraónidæ, we shall diminish the simplicity of our system by multiplying our groups, and its uniformity by introducing a new kind of group, the subfamily, which it will be impossible to apply to every branch of the animal kingdom. We ought, I think, to adopt no more gradations of groups in any one class than admit of being established in every class. It therefore only remains to make these minor groups into subgenera or sections of the larger ones, Tétrao and Pérdix. Subgenera are practically useful for facility of reference; and they are useful to the more philosophic naturalist, by bringing into one view those species which are nearest allied; thus giving a right direction to his comparisons and observations: but it is, I think, of the utmost importance that these subgenera should not have names imposed upon them. The needless multiplication of names is the very bane of science; loading the memory beyond its powers of endurance, and degrading the philosophic naturalist into a walking dictionary. Careful and minute observations on animals cannot be carried too far; they enrich the descriptions of species, and supply characters for subgenera; and hence Mr. Blyth deserves much praise for his careful remarks upon the habits of birds, in Rennie's Field Naturalist's Magazine; but I cannot agree with him, that because distinct, and even natural, groups can be formed upon these minor characters, therefore every such group is to be made a genus, and honoured with a name. Suppose that, instead of studying one order of birds alone, Mr. Blyth was to extend the same principle to the whole animal kingdom, we should have, perhaps, 50,000 or 60,000 genera! Who, then, could be an ornithologist, much less a zoologist? Language itself would fail in finding names for such a countless multitude.

Another strong objection to naming subgenera is, that the generic and subgeneric name are continually confounded and used promiscuously. This is often the case with the French writers; and even the immortal Règne Animal of Cuvier is not free from this blemish. The confusion which hence arises is evident. Mr. Jenyns's plan seems, therefore, to be the best; to distinguish subgenera, or, as I would rather call them, sections, by signs or letters. But now comes Mr. New

man's difficulty; how are we, in writing or conversation, to indicate subgenera? I think that, for common purposes, it is not necessary to do so at all. When the name of a genus is mentioned, a knowledge of the larger groups in which it is contained is presupposed. If, therefore, we carry the standard of our genera too low, it is probable that none but those few who have leisure to make themselves perfect in zoology will know the class or order of a genus which another person may casually mention. If a naturalist at Calcutta is told that the Fringilla cœlebs is common in England, he at once recognises the general characters of the bird; but if it were called Schiza coelebs, as Mr. Blyth would call it, it is a great chance whether he would be the wiser for the information. greater accuracy be required, the informant may add that it belongs to section A or B; and, if he were describing a new species, he would, of course, either indicate the section, or describe it with sufficient accuracy to enable any one to refer it to the right one.

But, if

In offering these remarks, I am far from desiring the Linnæan genera to be retained unaltered, but merely wish the practice of forming new genera not to be carried too far.

Mr. Newman says (p. 480.) that the orders Fèræ, Accípitres, and Coleóptera are not of the same value, because the latter contains many groups analogous to the two former, and others quite different. He seems to have overlooked the remark of Decandolle, in Mr. Jenyns's paper (p. 389. note *), "that the same characters are not of equal value in different groups." Hence there can be no doubt that it is far more natural to found the orders of insects upon the structure of their wings, than to put Véspa, Libéllula, and Cicindela into one order, on the ground of being rapacious; and Apis, Papílio, and Chrysomèla into another, because they are herbivorous.

Mr. Newman objects to uniting the Cetacea with the other Mammalia; but if we attend not only to the number of characters which they have in common, but to the value of those characters, that is, to the high station which they hold in the scale of existence, there can be little doubt that this is a natural union. The claim of the Marsupiàlia, and especially the Scansòres, is more doubtful; founded, as they are, on single characters only, and those not, perhaps, of very great importance. I am, Sir, yours, &c.-H. E. Strickland.

Classification (VI. 385. 481-488.)-Mr. Newman (p. 480.) appears to me to have misunderstood the observations of Mr. Jenyns. (p.385.) Mr. Jenyns refers, I presume, to a plan similar to that adopted in botany; where subgenera (or, as they

are there called, sections) are very generally used and named : the sectional names being merely intended for convenience in description and reference, and not to be retained in the memory. The sections are founded upon characters which are considered of subordinate value to those used in distinguishing the genera: the latter depending almost solely on the construction of the flower and fruit, and the former upon the general habit of the plant, the form and character of the leaves, stipules, &c., and such variations in the fructification as are found to be but of little value in the natural order to which the plant belongs. The advantage of this plan appears to be, that the genera in each order, all depending upon modifications of the same parts, are of nearly an equal value, and the sections are only employed where there is a marked difference in subordinate characters or habit between

the parts of a genus. Some genera will therefore contain many of these sections, and others only one; in the same manner that an order is sometimes found to contain only one genus. Or, perhaps, it would be more correct to say, that we are not yet acquainted with the other sections of the genus or the other genera of the order. In illustration of this, I give the characters of the genera and sections (subgenera) in the tribe Thlaspídeæ, order Cruciferæ.

The tribe is divided into two parts: 1. Cells of silicle two- or many-seeded; 2. Cells of silicle one-seeded.

I take the former of these, because it contains three British genera: the characters are

Thláspi. Silicle emarginate at the apex, valves winged at the back; cells two- or many-seeded.

Hutchinsia. Silicle elliptical, valves wingless; cells two-, rarely three-, seeded.

Teesdàlia. Silicle oval, emarginate at the apex; cells two-seeded; stamens each with a scale on the inner side at the base.

Platyspermum. Silicle oblong, crowned by the short thick style; cells four-five-seeded; seeds with a broad margin.

The genus Thlápsi is divided into the following sections (subgenera):

Sec. 1. Pachyphrágma. — Silicle broad. Style none. Dissepiment thick, double, furnished with three longitudinal plates. Seeds four, not striated.

Sec. 2. Carpóceras. — Valves expanding at the end into a hornlike wing. Dissepiment membranous, oblong. Seeds four, striated.

Sec. 3. Nomísma. — Valves with a wing along the whole back. Seeds numerous, striated.

Sec. 4. Neurótropis. - Silicle orbicular, with a narrow recess; back of VOL. VII. No. 37.

F

the valves with a broad wing, circumscribed by a nerve. Seeds numerous, not striated.

Sec. 5. Pterótropis. Silicle somewhat obovate, with a broad recess, or truncate; back of the valves with a wing not circumscribed by a nerve. Seeds not striated.

Teesdalia and Platyspérmum have no sections, or, rather, each contains only one.

According to the plan proposed by Mr. Newman, the above sections must, I presume, be formed into genera, and the genera themselves will become families; therefore the two (Teesdàlia and Platyspermum), which have only one section, must have new names invented, to mark the difference between the family and the genus. I cannot see what additional advantage would result from this plan, to compensate for loading the memory with additional terms.

In speaking of a plant, the generic and specific names alone are used; the sectional one being only employed in description, to avoid repeating the same character in numerous species, or to communicate a general idea of a plant without giving a detailed description. This plan, of named genera and sections, has been partially adopted in entomology. See the genus Colymbètes, in which the generic character depends chiefly on the formation of the mouth, and the sectional upon that of the legs. Charles C. Babington, M.A., F.L.S., &c. Mr. Audubon and his Work, the Biography of Birds. (VI. 550.) One glance more at testimonies relative to Mr. Audubon's claim to the authorship of the Biography of Birds.

66

"I have read Mr. Audubon's original manuscripts, and I have read Mr. Waterton's original manuscripts; and both before they were published.* I think the English of the one is as good as the English of the other." (W. Swainson, in VI. 550.)

"Mr. Audubon is the son of French parents. He was educated in France till the age of seventeen. At that time he could not speak the English language. It cannot, therefore, be the least disparagement to Mr. Audubon, if, when he had a valuable work to publish in English, he should wish to receive

* Mr. Mawman, who published the Wanderings, was bound down not to make any alterations in the Wanderings.