13 FEBRUARY 1830, Page 12

THE QUARTERLY REVIEW—ON SYSTEMS AND METHODS IN NATURAL HISTORY.

WE seldom enter upon the formal discussion of scientific questions in this popular miscellany, although for such a task we possess, in the disinterested cooperation of kind friends, when we choose to call upon them, resources of no ordinary power. There is, however, an article in the last Quarterly Review, "on Systems and Methods in Natural History," so exceedingly amusing, that we cannot refrain from no- ticing it. The writer is desirous of laying down "first principles of arrangement :" he therefore judiciously clears the way, by roundly asserting that LINNEUS, JUSSIEU, HUMBOLDT, CUTLER, and all naturalists, ancient and modern, are palpably wrong. These worthies have supposed, that animals and vegetables might be exhibited by a single natural method ; "an idea," says the Reviewer, "the imprac- ticability of which admits of demonstration," (p. 313.) As for the great Swede, he appears to have been no better than a pedant. To prove this, the writer obligingly informs us, that the Linnwan axiom of "Nature opjfex rerum, sallies non facit," is an ignorant " dogma," to "which, without hesitation, they have (as ignorantly) assented," (p.317.) To establish this novel proposition, we are re- ferred—not to the earth and its productions, but to the sky and its planets: we shall there see "Jupiter with four moons, Saturn with seven, and Herschel with six:' All this clearly. proving, to the appre- hension of the Reviewer, that" as Nature makes great leaps in giving moons to some and not to others," she " indulges" in these said vaga- ries and "frolicsome leaps," on this our earth, with peculiar friski- ness. We have next the following edifying piece of information : "Neither is there any proof offered that in delegating itiower to Na- ture, the Deity necessarily limited her efforts, to progressive develop- ment :" "in short, this eagerly sought-after unity of method," is" obvi- ously a dream of the imagination," (p. 314, 320.) Having thus inti- mated that Nature, and not the Deity, was the Creator,—and logically proved, that as no plan whatever has been pursued in the beginning, we are still surrounded by objects in a chaotic state,—the Reviewer, somewhat to our astomshment, shifts his ground, and begins to talk of "as many natural methods as there are organs ; " so that each species may occupy a place in different groups. "All this," he pa- thetically adds, "must be admitted, and there is no remedy!' (p. 314.) Alas for C UV IER, M ACLE AY, JUSSIEU, HUMBOLDT, and BROWN! how have ye been deceived! how fruitless have been all your labours 1—As for MACLEAN, he does not appear even to have discovered one of those "many natural methods," which the Reviewer says "must be ad- mitted," and which might therefore escape his censure. The Hone En- tomologiece of this naturalist, from the celebrity it has obtained, seems to be the special object of the Reviewer's attack ; 30 far, at least, as he can comprehend the profound views of its author. He bestows upon it sundry unqualified epithets of depreciation ; and because he can dis- cover no affinity between the distinct vestige of a skull in the Cepha- lopoda, and the full development of that organ in the Reptiles, very complacently informs us, that the whole edifice of natural affinities "reared" (or rather exhibited) in the Horse Entomologicw, may be destroyed in a moment by the breath of truth." Towards naturalists, who imagine the unexplored regions of the globe may yet yield forms calculated to exhibit the chain of continuity more perfectly, the Re- viewer is peculiarly compassionate ; he says that although we are endeavouring to "soothe our feelings" by this hope, we shall be most wofully deceived. Nothing remains unknown "but species," (p. 327.) All the new forms which the naturalists of Europe are perpetually re- ceiving and describing from distant regions, are nothing more than species of those genera already known This is indeed unanswerable. But are we to have no 'light to guide our steps in this chaotic state of things, in what has been thought a world of beauteous order and per- fect harmony ? Oh yes. Notwithstanding all these "leaps," "bolts," and other vagaries, which Nature indulges in, we are not to despair of comprehending all her eccentricities; we are to take the "Dichoto- mous method, invented by the Jewish legislator,"—whom, somehow or other, the writer makes out to be the first and greatest naturalist who has ever lived. This method, or system, "is regulated by positive and negative characters." As for instance," Beasts are to be distributed into such as divide the hoof, such as are cloven-footed, such as chew the cud, with their negatives, and fishes contemplated as having fins and scales, or wanting such organs." (Here, by the way, we may remark, that we have always imagined fins and scales were the essential appendages to a ph.) We should have thought nothing more easy than to understand this system : but it is no such easy matter. "The obvious reason," says the writer, "why it is so generally neglected, is, because the powers of observation and judgment must be in fall activity I "—to perceive positive and negative characters. We have said enough of this very original production, to excite the inquiry, who can possibly be its author? We know only of one writer in whose lucubrations we can trace the germ of such astounding axioms ; some of which, from having been slighted by the learned, the Reviewer has here repeated for their especial benefit. Had we no other grounds than these whereupon to form our opinion, we should unhe- sitatingly point to Dr. J. FLEMING, the compiler of the Philosophy of Zoology, and of the History of British Animals, as the writer of this article. Disappointed, probably, at the neglect or censure of his former productions, this gentleman seems to imagine that fame is to be acquired by questioning the greatest truths of zoology; and by ridiculing the labours of all those nobles in science, to whom the rest of the world look up with admiration and respect. Had he studied more and compiled less—had he mixed in the scientific world, instead of vegetating in Fifeshire—he would have thought differently. At all events, we should not have had the following apology in the preface to the crude and unserviceable History of British Animals; a book which we suspect has fallen still-born from the press.

"The author, however, has done his best; situate as he is at a great dis- tance from personal intercourse with zoologists, and opportunities of con- sulting the journals of the day, and in a great measure confined to an exami- nation of those works which constitute his own limited library."

The day has gone by when the public would be satisfied with such an apology ; nor is any one, with such confined resources and limited information, entitled to conic before them, much less to lay down "first principles of arrangement." The truth is, that supposing all the town are now buying works on natural history, the booksellers are bringing out quarterly, monthly, weekly, nay, almost daily, an mcon- ceivable quantity of trash "of all sorts and sizes." The trade have overstocked the market, and with goods of the most flimsy texture ; and this error they will soon discover. That this article should have found its way into a Review which is supposed to exhibit a constellation of talent, is to us a matter of very unfeigned astonishment. The editor, to be sure, is not a naturalist ; but then, we presume, he is not, on these occasions, without coun- sellors.