A loud outcry will doubtless be raised against Professor Rennie on account of these opinions, by the self-appointed cabinet-ministers of nature, who are assuredly neither her secretaries nor her interpreters. He need not care for the abuse of such persons-he writes for those who aim at philosophical and extended views of nature. With all his admiration of the enthusiasm, devotion, and even genius of Linnæus, he cannot consider that extraordinary man a philosophic naturalist. Linnæus thought that the superiority of a naturalist depended upon his knowing the greatest number of species, and that the study of natural history consisted in the collection, arrangement, and exhibition of the various productions of the earth. Unquestionably, by storing the memory with specific names and technical distinctions, "a good gossiping naturalist" might be made; but good gossiping naturalists are of all old women the most wearifu' and superfluous, and the breed should be subjected to all possible discouragements. A study, again, narrowed down as Linnæus narrowed it, and without reference to causes, effects, or the wise contrivances of the Creator, would never lead to the natural history which Lord Bacon declares to be the basis of all science, and "fundamental to the erecting and building of a true philosophy." Nor is Professor Rennie singular in his just severities on Linnæus and his followers-for he backs them with the opinions of Dr. Aikin, Professor Lindley, Mr. White of Selborne, Mr. Vigors, Mr. MacLeay, Dr. Fleming, and Dr. Heineken; and sums up all by asserting the truth to be, that the Linnæan system mainly contributed to extinguish the genuine study of nature, and rendered it unpopular for many years, since every writer surrendered himself unconditionally to its shackles, and, of course, repelled every student imbued with a particle of philosophy or of taste, or alive to the glorious beauties of the creation.

What, in good truth, can be more puerile than to limit, as Linnæus did, his descriptions of specific character to twelve words-or than his division of one of his works into twelve parts, because there are twelve months in the year-and into three hundred and sixty-five paragraphs, to correspond to the number of days in the year! Thus, all that Linnæus tells us of the bank swallow (Hirundo

riparia-RAY,) is contained in the following twelve words:"H. riparia, cinerea, gula abdomineque albisHabitat in Europa collibus arenosis abruptis, foramine serpentino." This is all we are taught to believe" that the industry of man has been able to discover concerning it!" Pennant and Latham are nearly as brief and just as meagre, and Cuvier himself does not improve on it, "by gravely adding this absurdity:"-" Elle pond dans des trous le long des eaux. Il parait constant qu'elle s'engourdit pendant l'hiver, et même qu'elle passe cette saison au fond de l'eau des marais!" Compare this useless stuff with all the interesting facts" that the industry of man" has really accumulated concerning the same bird, and you will acknowledge that Linnæus, wonderful being as he was, may, without offence to any rational mind, be safely pronounced an ignoramus. The late Dr. Heineken speaking of Gmelin, a disciple of the Linnæan school, characterizes him as having "an instinctive propensity towards the erroneous;"-and of that gifted person's "thirteenth edition of Linnæus, as it is called," quoth the doctor, “I have had the good fortune never to be burdened with it— but in an evil hour, a kind friend bestowed on me the seven ponderous tomes of that kindred spirit, Turton." Temminck calls Gmelin's edition of Linnæus "the most undigested book in existence.' Of Temminck's "Manuel d'Ornithologie," Rennie of course speaks highly, which, though essentially Linnæan, is much more circumstantial and accurate than is usual with the disciples of that school. It proves, however, that Temminck is much better acquainted with collections of stuffed specimens than with living birds, except such aquatic ones as frequent the shores of Holland, and in that point of view, it contrasts strongly with the Dictionary of Montagu-especially now that that book has been so greatly enriched from many sources by its editor. On turning from Montagu to Temminck, we indeed are made to feel the truth of the observation, that a lexicon or explanatory catalogue is of unquestionable and indispensable use, for the purpose of identifying the species which may come under observation, or chance to be connected with interesting discussion and detail; but that nobody beyond the barriers of Lin

næanism could ever dream of designating any of these, useful though they be, a natural history, any more than of calling a book like Blair's Chronology the History of the World.

Mr. Rennie concludes his sixty page preface to Montagu with three lists containing almost all the names of the writers of any note on ornithology-rudimental, literary, and philosophic naturalists. Under the first he includes all works consisting of descriptive catalogues, chiefly of museum specimens, arranged systematically; including either whole classes, or particular groups of animals; the latter termed Monographs, and only useful to aid the student in identifying specimens by form, colour, and structure, commonly omitting historical and philosophical details, and rarely like the beautiful account of the British swallows, which White of Selborne called by the now abused title of Monograph such works, particularly the Monograph, often dealing in critical disquisitions about names, divisions, and the particular place a species, genus, or group, ought to occupy in the system adopted, exhibiting, in many instances, passages of worthless trifling, undeserving of perusal. The second comprehends all works consisting of notices and details, sometimes, though less frequently derived from the observation of living nature than from closet reading, but often highly interesting and valuable, though very commonly sprinkled with inaccuracies. The third contains works consisting of personal observations on the habits, character, or physiology of living animals, and inquiries into the causes and reasons of what is observed, for the purpose either of supporting theories, often fanciful, or of illustrating the providential wisdom of the Great Creator. It is to be noted, that philosophical naturalists are often no less deficient in knowledge of systematic catalogues, than the rudimental naturalists are of philosophy— both are important to be known. The three lists contain, if not a complete, a comprehensive bibliography of birds.

We have been led into these somewhat detailed remarks —some of them our own, and some of them Mr. Rennie's -who, we are sure, will not grudge us the use of them in a magazine which occasionally touches, in its own way, on zoology-from our anxiety to encourage students, in

this department of natural history, against those depressing fears that must sometimes assail them from the cold, dry, and horrid aspect which the science assumes in the Linnæan school. With him we do indeed lament that the meagre index fashion of describing natural productions was ever introduced, since, as he says, it has so seldom been employed in the only way in which it can be useful; and it appears to have taken such deep root as to threaten, like some sorts of noxious weeds, to be incapable of being eradicated; for by far the greater number of recent works upon the subject, even when they pretend to novelty of system, have the essential characteristic of the Linnæan school, of being most carefully stripped of every interesting detail, and trimmed down to a limited number of lines, reminding one strongly of the old poets, who squared their leaves into the forms of adzes, hearts, and triangles, and left the consideration of sentiment and imagery to bards who would not condescend to such puerile trifling.

It has been well said by a writer in Loudon's Magazine of Natural History, that "those who employ themselves in disguising and degrading science by cacophonous nomenclature, and a parade of barbarous Latinity, which fools think learning, are entitled to reprobation and contempt. There are many such in France, and some among ourselves, great men in their little circles; they do well to make the most of this, for they may rest assured that however high they rank in their own estimation, or in that of their coteries, the world neither knows nor cares any thing about them." Yet the puerile triflers thus employed hold in contempt the works that alone deserve the name of science; these miserable manufacturers of words complaining in querulous tones of their "legitimate productions," being" left to languish and decay," "because the grown-up public are satisfied with infants' food in the shape of cheap compilations, crude translations, wonders of the insect world, &c., &c., with such other amusing trifles, fit only for children." A consumptive blockhead with a queasy stomach might as well call roast-beef and plum-pudding "infants' food," as the sapid and nutritive dishes which have lately been set before the healthy public, and which she has plentifully devoured with great gusto.

Why a translation should be crude we do not see, any more than its original; and the ninny of ninnies must he indeed be, who, in a nation owing a million million of debt, and taxed accordingly, complains of a compilation "that it is cheap." The sneer at "wonders of the insect world" is aimed, we presume at Professor Rennie's "Insect Architecture," "Insect Transformations," &c.; but the person who could call such wonders as are revealed there, "amusing trifles fit only for children," must be himself an insect scarce worthy even of this short notice,-an ephemeral and a midge.

It is encouraging, however, to know, that flesh-andblood naturalists are held now in far higher repute in Britain than the skeletons. The good sense of the English public never stomached such a work as Turton's seven ponderous Linnæan tomes, which sell now for little more than the price of waste paper; and that too at a time when the works of genuine naturalists, such as White's Selborne, and Knapp's Journal of a Naturalist are selling by thousands, and will continue to sell to the tune of tens of thousands.

In this state of public opinion and feeling on the subject of natural knowledge and science, what fears can be entertained for the success and glory of such an ornithologist as Audubon? We have seen that Professor Rennie classes him along with Levaillant, in the first order, into which none can be admitted but the sons of genius, who, in the spirit of philosophy, have pursued science over the bosom of nature. Of him, Swainson says, "there is a freshness and originality about his Essays, which can only be compared to the unrivalled biographies of Wilson. Both these men contemplated Nature as she really is, not as she is represented in books; they sought her in her sanctuaries. The shore, the mountain, and the forest, were alternately their study, and there they drank the pure stream of knowledge at its fountain-head. The observations of such men are the corner-stones of every attempt to discover the system of Nature. Their writings will be consulted when our favourite theories shall have passed into oblivion. Ardently, therefore, do I hope, that M. Audubon will alternately become the historian and the painter of his