Swainson excuses himself for not entering into long details explanatory of the above table, on the ground that explanation is unnecessary, seeing that 'the analogies are so perfect, and the series so completely in unison with those of all other animals.' To the modern scientific student it seems equally unnecessary to discuss such a table, as it violates all those fundamental canons of classification which have been established by the combined labours of naturalists for the last two centuries. It would not, indeed, be easy to produce a classificatory table of Mammals and birds more entirely at variance with what naturalists at the present day believe as to

the true relationships of animals. One fact sufficiently proves this—namely, that in deference to the mystical 'quinary' law, the Mammals are divided into only five groups or orders; whereas naturalists consider that there are at least fifteen or sixteen natural orders of these animals.

The circular classification' is, then, a mere figment of the human mind; the notion of a quinary, ternary, or septenary division of animals is equally a product of the imagination. So far as our present knowledge goes, two things are abundantly evident. One of these is, that no numerically symmetrical arrangement of animals can, by any possibility, accord with their natural affinities and relationships. The other is, that any pictorial representation of the different groups of the animal series in the order of their natural alliances would assuredly not present us with a system of similar closed circles, but with a branched and ramified genealogical tree. One main trunk we should undoubtedly find; and this would give off numerous lateral stems, which would in turn subdivide, some branches ascending in the course of their development, while others, in consequence of degeneration, would descend. No numerical law could, however, possibly be formulated which would express the branching of the main stem of life; nor would there be any parity of size, or equality in zoological value, between the different branches of the parent trunk.

BRITISH ZOOLOGISTS

(CONTINUED).

IN the twenty or thirty years which followed the publication, in 1817, of the 'Règne Animal,' the study of natural history was prosecuted in Britain by many distinguished and able men, and great advances were effected in almost all branches of the science. These advances, however, mostly concern our knowledge of special groups of animals, and are therefore of little interest except to specialists. As regards philosophical zoology, or the principles of natural history, the condition. of the science remained without any noteworthy alteration, very much as it had been left by Cuvier. All that can be here attempted, therefore, is to give a very brief general sketch of the progress which was made during this period as regards special groups of the animal kingdom, with more particular reference to any point of exceptional interest. Many well-known names are, of course, necessarily omitted in such an outline, and any attempt to analyse the varied works which appeared at this epoch would lead us into paths which are only pleasant to walk upon for the initiated. The typical naturalist of this

period is Edward Forbes, who may be selected for a longer notice.

As regards 'general zoology,' this period produced a number of able workers. No one, perhaps, contributed more largely to the diffusion of a knowledge of, and a taste for, natural history than the well-known Dumfriesshire baronet, Sir William Jardine, who united to a wide general knowledge of natural history and of geology a special acquaintance with ornithology. Sir William is probably

best known as the editor of that excellent and popular work the 'Naturalists' Library,' of which more than one edition was published. This work consists of forty volumes, dealing with Mammals, birds, fishes, and insects, and illustrated with spirited figures, drawn and engraved by Lizars. Sir William Jardine was also joint-editor, along with Mr Selby and Dr Johnston, of the 'Magazine of Zoology and Botany,' of which only two volumes appeared (in 1837 and 1838); when it became merged. in one of the most admirable of our existing zoological periodicals—namely, the 'Annals and Magazine of Natural History,' affectionately known to its readers by the abbreviated name of the 'Annals and Mag.'

The only general work treating of the whole of the animals of the British area, which appeared during this period, was the 'History of British Animals,' by the Rev. John Fleming, D.D., who was one time minister of Flisk in Fifeshire, and subsequently professor of natural philosophy in King's College, Aberdeen (from 1834 to 1845). This work was published in 1828, in one volume, and dealt systematically with all known British animalsa gigantic task for one man, even at that time, and an

almost impossible one for a single worker now. It is unfortunately not illustrated, and the account given of the lower Invertebrates is necessarily meagre and imperfect. Fleming also wrote a work on 'The Philosophy of Zoology,' in two volumes, and a small treatise on the Mollusca, which appeared first in the seventh edition of the 'Encyclopædia Britannica,' and was published later (1837) in a separate form.

As regards the special group of the quadrupeds, perhaps the most important work published in England at this time was the 'Fauna Boreali-Americana,' or 'Northern Zoology,' of Sir John Richardson, which appeared in 1828. This noble work treated of the zoology of the northern parts of British North America, and was based upon the collections which had been gathered together during the northern land expeditions under the command of Sir John Franklin. The four quarto volumes are admirably illustrated, and treat respectively of the Mammals, the birds, the insects, and the fishes; the insects being described by Mr Kirby, while Swainson took part in the production of the volume on the birds. Unlike the 'Arctic Zoology' of Pennant, the 'Fauna Boreali-Americana' was the work of a naturalist who had personally visited the region of which he described the animals. Sir John Richardson had, in fact, been the chief surgeon and naturalist to the overland Arctic expedition of Sir John. Franklin in 1825. In 1848, he once more visited the Arctic regions, in the hope of discovering, if possible, what had been the fate of the last disastrous expedition of Franklin. Richardson was a Scotchman, born at Dumfries in 1787. His life was one of great interest,