The objects of nature may be considered under two points of view; 1st, With respect to their form, structure, habits, and individual properties when viewed in a state of inactivity; 2dly, With respect to the mutual changes which they produce when made to act on each other. Hence the study of nature may be divided into two parts, NATURAL HISTORY and NATURAL SCIENCE; the former considering bodies in comparatively an inactive state, the latter in a state of mutual action.
then, is that part of natural knowledge which teaches us to distinguish and describe the objects of nature, to examine their appearance, structure, properties and uses, and to collect, preserve, and arrange them (A).
1. When we take a general survey of the objects with which we are surrounded, we are bewildered amidst the number and variety that are everywhere presented to our view. The air, the woods, the fields, the waters, teem with myriads of animals; a large proportion of the earth's surface is covered with a green mantle of luxuriant herbage, interspersed with plants and flowers of a thousand varied tints; and when we search below this, when we explore the cloud-capt mountain, the gloomy mine, the sequestered cavern, or the rocky cliff, we discover a great variety of mineral substances, either piled into irregular masses, or lying in uniform beds or layers, disposed in veins or seams, or scattered at random through the other stony matters.
To the casual observer, the number and variety of these objects would appear almost infinite. He would consider it equally impossible to enumerate them, as to number the stars, or count the sands on the sea shore. This idea, however, arises from his seeing them in confusion and disorder. The naturalist, by separating them into those groups or classes, in which they often naturally present themselves, has succeeded not only in distinguishing the several kinds from each other, but even in guessing pretty accurately at the number of species that have hitherto been discovered.
There are two objects which should principally occupy the attention of the naturalist: 1st, To classify natural substances; 2dly, To examine their structure.
The number of natural productions being confessedly very great, it is necessary to find out some means of distinguishing them from each other, and of recognizing them on seeing them anew. These means are the peculiarities, or the assemblages of peculiarities, that exclusively belong to each body. Now there is scarcely any substance that has a simple character, that is, which can be distinguished from every other substance by any one of its properties singly. It is only by the combination of several of these properties that we can distinguish an object from others, which resemble it in possessing some one or more of those very properties; and the more numerous the species we compare, the more necessary it becomes to bring their properties together, in order to assign to each a character that may distinguish it from the rest. Hence to distinguish a species, considered independently from all others that exist in nature, it is necessary to express in its character almost the whole of its properties; and the more of these we take into the character, the more complete will be our description of the object. But no man can acquire a sufficiently accurate knowledge of all natural objects to enable him to give a complete description of them: human life is too short to admit of the completion of such a task. All that can be expected from our limited faculties is to acquire a general knowledge of natural objects, confining our principal attention to such as possess some striking qualities, or appear convertible to the useful purposes of life.
To gain this end, two modes of procedure have been adopted by naturalists. According to the first mode, and we employ characters that proceed by degrees from particulars to generals. We begin by comparing together a certain number of species that bear the nearest relation to each other. In drawing the characters of these species, it is requisite to express only those differences, which, on a supposition that they are the most nearly related, form but a small part of their properties; a number of species thus brought together constitutes what is called a genus or tribe.
(A) Some writers divide natural history into general and particular, which are thus defined by Cuvier. General natural history considers under a single point of view, all natural bodies, and the common result of all their actions in the great whole of nature. It determines the laws of coexistence of their properties; it establishes the degrees of resemblance that exist between different bodies, and classes them according to these degrees. The Particular natural history of any body, to be perfect, should comprehend, 1st, The description of all the sensible properties of that body, and of all its parts; 2d, The mutual relations of these parts, the motions which they produce, and the changes which they undergo while they remain united; 3d, The active and passive relations of this body with every other body in the universe; and 4th, The explanation of all these phenomena. See Tableau Elementaire d'Histoire Naturelle. The remainder of these properties which are common to all the species of the genus combine to form the character, or rather the description, of the genus, distinguishing it from all those which might be formed by bringing together other species; but the number of these common properties being still very considerable, we repeat the same means in order to reduce the characters of the genera to smaller terms. We compare together only those genera which most nearly resemble each other, and the generic characters now employed must only express those differences which form but a small part of their common properties. Those properties, which are common to all the genera, compose a character that distinguishes this assemblage or group from all other groups of genera. Such an assemblage of genera is called an order.
Repeating the same operation, and bringing together such orders as are most nearly allied, we form a more general assemblage, called a class; and again uniting a certain number of classes, we form a higher division, to which naturalists have given the name of kingdom: this chain of divisions in which the higher links comprehend the lower, forms what is called a method. The other mode of procedure is to rise gradually from generals to particulars, beginning with the slightest and most obvious differences, thus forming the first division or kingdom; dividing each kingdom into classes, each class into orders, each order into genera, each genus into species, and each species into varieties. This descending series constitutes what is called a system, and is that which has been generally adopted by naturalists.
To illustrate this systematical classification of natural objects, let us select a familiar example. Among the various creatures that pass under our observation, a great number are possessed of life, of sensation, and voluntary motion; these we call animals, and of these we form the animal kingdom. On examining various groups of animals, we find that many have four extremities, and suckle their young by means of teats; these we call quadrupeds or mammalia. We have thus formed a class of animals. Again we find that of the mammalia some have hooved feet and blunt fore-teeth, and feed almost entirely on vegetables. These will constitute an order of the class of mammalia, to which Linnæus has given the name of bovinae. Of this order a certain number of animals agree in having six fore-teeth in both jaws, and form a genus or tribe distinguished by this particular from the other animals of the same order, and commonly called the horse tribe. Lastly, in this tribe we find one species that has solid hoofs, a tail bristly at the end, an upright mane, and a black cross on the shoulder of the male. This species is the common ass.
In framing an artificial system of natural history, most writers have agreed on the division of natural bodies into kingdoms, proceeding on the supposition that these marks which are to distinguish the objects of one kingdom from those of another are sufficiently fixed and certain.
Let us examine for a little how far this supposition agrees with nature's works as we find them.
The division of natural objects commonly adopted is into three kingdoms; the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms. This division has been almost universally received as perfectly consistent with nature; and is by most persons thought to be so clear and distinct, that they suppose it impossible to mistake in referring any particular object to its proper kingdom. This arises from their having noticed only such objects as bear evident marks of the division to which they belong; but if we draw their attention to a variety of other individuals, they will acknowledge themselves to be incompetent to the decision, or will erroneously refer to one division, what has, after accurate examination, been determined to belong to another.
There is one whole class of productions, called zoophytes by naturalists, which seem to form the connecting links between the different kingdoms. They are animals of the polypus kind, mostly covered with a calcareous crust, differing little in composition from the shells of lobsters, shrimps, and other shell-fish, and formed like them from an exudation or secretion on the surface of their bodies. These polypi are connected together by thousands, or even millions, and assume a great variety of appearances according to their arrangement: the same species, however, always assuming the same, or very nearly the same appearance. Some are connected together in form of stem and branches, as the flustra, sertulariae, corallines and others; many of which have their offspring in the egg state attached to them, and so situated as to bear exact resemblance to the seed-vessels of plants. These are altogether so like to many of the sea-plants, as to be generally confounded with them, under the title of sea-weeds; but the attentive naturalist may, by examining them in their natural state, perceive the tentacula or feelers of each polypus extended in its search for food, and hastily retracting within its shell upon the least alarm. Many of this description are found attached to oysters or other shell-fish; and often to stones and pebbles which are covered or occasionally wetted by the sea.
Other zoophytes assume less regular figures, and are much more firm and solid, resembling the productions of the mineral kingdom. Madrepores and miliepores, called often brainstones, are of this kind. At first sight they look very like stones and pebbles, or like pieces of chalk or marble, but on an accurate inspection, anyone may perceive marks of an organic structure; and when they are in a recent state, may detect the inhabitants of their numerous cells.
The above examples will suffice to prove, how insufficient is either a hasty examination or the judging by similarity of appearance, for determining to what kingdom of nature any particular object belongs. But there are many other productions to which few persons could without hesitation assign their places: For instance, where would we arrange the green powdery substance so common on paling; the spotted and streaked appearance on stones; the mould on cheese, or the green jelly-like matter that floats on the surface of the stagnant waters? Naturalists in general have assigned these productions to the vegetable kingdom; but Sennebier and a few others have maintained that some of them are animals.
According to some writers, the most philosophical notion which we can form on this subject is, that the division of natural objects into kingdoms is artificial, and that Nature, acknowledging no such bonds, passes imperceptibly from the animal to the vegetable, and from the... the vegetable to the mineral world, without defining where one ceases or where the next begins.
As the appearances of natural productions are insufficient, so are their properties and powers, for determining which are animals or which vegetables, according to the received acceptation of the terms. If locomotion is allowed to be the characteristic of an animal, where shall we place the oyster, or the zoophytes of which we have just been speaking, or where some species of ulva and conferva, plants that swim about detached in water? If feeling or sensation be the test, who shall decide, that the sensitive plant (mimosa pudica), possesses it not? and who determine that the leaves of the fly-trap, (Dionaea muscipula), when they contract, and catch the fly as soon as it alights, do not feel the despoiler that comes to rob it of its honey?
Though these and similar objections may certainly be made to the artificial division of nature's works into kingdoms, yet it is convenient to have such a division; and even the very difficulty of establishing to which kingdom any object belongs, is an additional spur to the genius and industry of the naturalist.
The most natural division of the works of nature is that which distinguishes them into organized and inorganic bodies; and on the whole, we have seen no attempt to establish the differences between these so successful as that adopted by M. Dumeril in his late scientific work, Traité Élémentaire d'Histoire Naturelle.
"Some objects, says he, as animals and plants, have formerly constituted a part of other individuals, similar to themselves, from which they have been separated at a certain period, under the form of eggs, of germs, or of little living creatures; and their existence is evidently owing to this generation; they are born. Others, on the contrary, as stones, salts, water, may be formed by certain circumstances, and even by ourselves at pleasure. They have not necessarily made a part of other similar bodies; their existence seems to depend on certain fortuitous circumstances, that have produced the approximation of their constituent-principles, and their origin might be referred to attraction. These bodies are formed. Vegetables and animals, in increasing their size, only develope themselves. Whatever may be their minuteness, we shall, on a careful examination, find them already formed, with their parts requiring only to be evolved. Their increase proceeds from within outwards by intus-susception." Stones, and a great many other bodies, are augmented only by the same matter from which they are produced; their growth takes place always from without, by a sort of aggregation.
"As the increase of the bodies which compose these two great subdivisions is not alike in both, a duration very different ought to be the result of these dissimilarity. In fact, minerals are susceptible of indefinite increase, and their end is always indeterminate; it is vague, and depends on the circumstances under which they are placed. Plants and animals ought, from the same circumstances which favoured their development, to stop when their extension has been carried to the highest degree, so that the end or death of these bodies is fixed and necessary.
"The masses in which stones and other similar bodies generally present themselves, are angular, insulated, and very variable in their size. The individuals which we call plants and animals, have always, and necessarily, a form that is constant, for the most part rounded and classic symmetrical, and their extension is limited within certain bounds.
"There is this great difference between these bodies that those which increase by aggregation may be divided into molecules, or parts infinitely small, bearing a very near resemblance to the mass from which they were taken; while in those which develope themselves, no portion can be taken away and exist by itself, at least unless it develope new parts, which replace those that are wanting.
"The bodies which do not develope themselves, are in general formed of fluids or solids which remain constantly in the same points; they are composed of very few elements, which may be separated and again reunited. The bodies which develope themselves, on the contrary, are essentially composed of solids and fluids, which are always changing, and in a state of renovation; they have always, and from necessity, more or less consistence, they are penetrated and augmented by fluids, and after being decomposed they can never be formed again such as they were before."
For the more convenient study of natural history, the whole subject may be divided into five great branches:
1. Meteorology includes the description of all those phenomena which take place in the atmosphere that surrounds our globe. In the present work it is considered under the articles Meteorology, Meteorite, Atmospheric Electricity, Cloud, Moon, Influence, &c., &c.
2. Hydrography comprehends the natural history of the sea, of rivers, lakes, and other collections of water that make up so large a part of the earth. Much of this subject will be found treated of under the article River, and various parts of it have been discussed under Chemistry and Mineralogy.
3. Mineralogy is that part of the subject which treats of the solid inorganic bodies that are found on the surface or in the bowels of the earth. It has been considered under the articles Geology and Mineralogy.
4. Botany comprehends the natural history of vegetables. See Botany.
5. Zoology includes the natural history of all animals, and is subdivided into many subordinate classes.
These classes are different in number and denomination, according to the different systems of naturalists. Linné, whom we have principally followed in this work, has arranged animals under six classes: viz. 1. Mammalia, or those animals which suckle their young at mamme or paps; see Man, Mammalia and Cetology. 2. Aves, or birds; see Ornithology. 3. Amphibia, or those animals which can live either on land or in water; see Reptile and Ophiology. 4. Pisces, or fishes; see Ichthyology. 5. Insecta, or insects; see Entomology. And 6. Vermes, or worms; see Helminthology and Conchology.
Later naturalists have divided animals into a greater number of classes, and have subdivided these differently. Of these arrangements, that of M. Cuvier seems the most deserving of notice. After considering man, whom he very properly distinguishes from the other mammalia by allotting to him a separate book, he divides the rest of of the animal kingdom into nine classes, viz. Mammiferous animals, Birds, Reptiles, Fishes, Mollusca, Worms, Crustaceous animals, Insects and Zoophytes.
We have already given an outline of four of these classes, viz. of the Mammiferous animals, under Mammalia, and of Mollusca, Worms and Zoophytes, under Helminthology. To complete our view of Cuvier's arrangement, we shall here add an outline of the remaining five classes.
Cuvier divides birds into five orders, viz. Rapacious birds or Accipitres, Passerine birds, Climbers or Scansores, Gallinaceous birds, Waders or Grallae, and Anserine birds.
1. The Rapacious birds have short feet, toes furnished with strong claws, and a hooked bill. They are subdivided into three sections; viz. Nudicolles, having the head and part of the neck without feathers; containing the vulture tribe. Plumicolles, having the head covered with feathers and a cere at the base of the bill, containing the falcon tribe; including Griffons, Eagles, Sparrow-hawks, Buzzards, Kites and Falcons. Nycterides, having the head flattened backward from the front and the eyes directed forward; containing the owl tribe.
2. The Passerine birds are distinguished by having four toes, three before and one behind, with the external toes wholly or partially united. They are subdivided into seven sections; viz. Cenirostres, having the bill grooved towards the end of the mandible; containing the Shrikes, Flycatchers, Thrushes, Chatterers and Tanagers. Dentirostres, having a bill with notched edges; containing the Plant-clippers, Motmots, and Hornbills. Plemirostres, having the bill straight, strong, compressed and without a groove; containing the Grakles, Crows, Rollers, and Birds of Paradise. Conirostres, having the bill conical; containing the Orioles, Stares, Grosbeaks, Sparrows, and Buntings. Salubriostres, having the bill slender like an awl; containing the Titmice, Manakins, Larks, and Wagtails. Planirostres, having the bill short, flattened horizontally, and opening very wide; containing the Swallows and Goat-suckers. Tenuirostres, having the bill slender, elongated and solid; containing the Nuthatches, Creepers, Humming birds, Hoopoes, Bee-eaters, King-fishers and Todys.
3. The Climbers have two toes before and two behind. They are subdivided into two sections; viz. Cunicirostres, having a slender bill; containing Jacamars, Wood-peckers, Wy-necks, and Cuckoos. Levirostres, having the bill thick and light; containing the Anis, Toucacoes, Musophages, Curucuis, Barbets, Toucans, and Parrots.
4. The Gallinaceous birds have the front toes united at their base by a short membrane. They are subdivided into two sections, viz. Alectorides, having common wings fitted for flying; containing the Pigeons, Grouse, Peacocks, Pheasants, Pintados, Turkeys, Curassows, Guans, Bustards. Brevipennes, having wings too short for flight; containing the Ostrich, Cassowary and Dodo tribes.
5. The Waders have elevated and naked tarsi and the two outer toes united. They are subdivided into five sections, viz. Brevirostres, having the bill short and thick; containing the Trumpeters, Screamers, Secretaries, Boat-bills, and Flamingos. Cultrirostres, having the bill long, strong, and like a knife; containing the Herons, Jabirus and Ibisises. Latirostres; having the bill long, weak, and flattened horizontally; containing the Spoonbills. Longirostres, having the bill slender, long and weak; containing the Avocets, Plovers, Lapwings, Phalaropes, and Woodcocks. Pressirostres, having the bill middle-sized and compressed, containing the Oyster-Catchers, Rails, Coots and Jacanas.
6. The Anserine birds have the toes united by broad membranes. They are subdivided into four sections, viz. Pennipedes, having all the four toes united; containing the Pelicans, Tropic birds and Darters. Macropteres, having the thumb free, the bill not indented, and very long wings; containing the Terns, Gulls, Skimmers, Petrels and Albatrosses. Serrirostres, having the thumb free, the bill broad and serrated, and wings of a moderate size; containing the Ducks and Mergansers. Brachypteres, having the thumb either free or wanting, the bill not serrated, and the wings very short, containing the Grebes, Auks and Manchots.
The Amphibia or Reptiles are divided into two orders, as follows.
1. Those that have a heart with two auricles. This order is subdivided into two sections, viz. Chelonia, having a back shell and the jaws invested with horn, containing the Tortoise tribe, including Turtles and Tortoises. Sauria, having a scaly body and teeth; containing the Lizard tribe, including the Crocodiles, Guanas, Dragons, Lizards, Skinks, and some others.
2. Those that have a heart with one auricle. This order is also subdivided into two sections, viz. Ophidia, having a scaly body, no feet, and always without branchiae; containing the tribes of Anguis, Amphisbaena, Cecilia, Acrocordon, Angaha, Coluber or Snake, Boa, and Crotalus or Rattle-Snake. Batrachia, having a naked skin, feet and branchiae in the young animals; containing the Frogs, Salamanders, and (according to Cuvier's original table) the Siren.
The fishes are divided into two orders, Cartilaginous and Bony fishes.
1. Those which have a Cartilaginous skeleton are divided into two sections, viz. Chondropterygii, with fixed branchiae; containing the Lampreys, Hags, Rays, Dog-fish and Sea-monsters. Branchioskepti, with free branchiae; containing the tribes Batrachus or American Toad-fish, Polyodon, Accipenser or Sturgeons, Pegasus, Synagathus or Pipe-fish, Centriscus or Bellows-fish, Balistes or Horned-fish, Ostracion or Trunk-fish, Tetraodon or Sun-fish, Oviedes, Mola or Molos, Diodon or Porcupine-fish, Lophius or Frog-fish, and Cyclopterus or Lamp-fish.
2. The fishes with a bony skeleton are subdivided into four sections, viz. Apodiers, having no ventral fins; containing the tribes of Murana or Eels, Gymnothorax, Synbranchus, Sphagebranchus, Gymnotus or Electric-eels, Trichiurus, Gymneterus, Ophidium, Ammotyes, or Sand-eels; Amarichas, or Sea-wolves; and Xiphias or Sword-fish. Jugulares, having the ventral fins situated before the pectoral; containing the Had-docks, Blennys, Hunch-back, Dragonets, Sea-dragons, and Star-gazers. Thoraci, with the ventral fins situated below the pectoral; containing the Bull-heads, Scorpions, Gurnards, Gohys, Surmullets, Mackerel, Stickle-backs, Long-tails, Lanchirurus, Johnes, Sciences, Dorées, Stromateus, Thetitis, Chetodon, Doridos, Bodians, Bodians, Holocentrus, Lutiens, Perches, Anthias, Epinelephus, Wrasses, Breams, Scares, Flounders, Sea-serpents, Lepidopus, and Remoras. Abdominates, with the ventral fins situated behind the pectoral; containing the Mormyrus, Carps, Mullets, Flying-fish, Polynemus, Herrings, Atherines, Argentines, Salmons, Pikes, Loches, Amblapex, Silurus, Platysomatus, Armed-fish, Cuirass-fish, Amia, Acanthopterus, and Fistularia, or Tobacco-pipe-fish.
The Crustacea are divided into two orders, as follows:
1. Mollusca, containing the tribes of Limulus, Calyptus, Apus, Cyclops, and Polyphemus.
2. Ecrevisseae, or Crabs, containing the tribes of Cancer, Inachus, Pagurus, Astacus, Palinurus, Scyllarus, and Squilla.
The Insects are distributed by Cuvier under two general orders, viz.: Those with jaws, and those without jaws.
1. Insects with jaws are arranged under five sections, viz.: Gnathaptera, Neuroptera, Hymenoptera, Coleoptera, and Orthoptera. The Gnathaptera have no wings, and are subdivided into Polygnathus, having several pairs of jaws, containing the tribes of Physodes, Oniscus, and Cymothoe; Millepedes, with two jaws and feet at each ring of the body, containing the tribes of Julus and Scoleopendra; Araneides, having the head joined to the coxal rings, eight feet, and abdomen without feet; Seticaudae, having the head distinct, six feet, and abdomen terminated by silken threads; Ricinidae, with the head distinct, six feet, and the abdomen naked. The Neuroptera have four reticulated wings, and are subdivided into Odonatae, having the mouth covered with the lip, and the wings extended during repose; Tectipennae, with the mouth salient, and wings hidden below the body during repose; Agnatha, with a very small mouth, and no mandibles. The Hymenoptera have four veined wings, and of these some have the abdomen joined to the thorax by a pedicle; as the Mellites, having the lip prolonged into a trunk; the Duplicennae, having the upper wings folded lengthwise; the Chrysidae, having the antennae bent, and the abdomen hollow below; the Anthophiles, with the antennae filiform, wings not folded, abdomen round, and lips short; the Trouissiers, with setaceous antennae, of 12 or 13 joints, rolling up spirally; the Myrmeces, with setaceous bent antennae, and a rounded abdomen; the Insectivores, with bent antennae of 30 joints, and a prominent sting; Cynipes, with filiform antennae and a spiral sting. Others of this section have the abdomen sessile, as the Uroceri, with palp scarcely apparent, and a very prominent sting, and the Tenithredos with very prominent palps and a serrated sting. The Coleoptera have four wings, the uppermost of which are hard, and the lower fold transversely: they have either six palps, as the Carnassiers, with filiform or setaceous antennae; or four palps; and of these latter some have the tarsus five-jointed, as the Lamellicornes, with clavated antennae, having the club lamellated; the Clavicornes, with the antennae either perforated or solid; the Branchylateres, with moniliform antennae and short elytra; the Woodpeckers, with filiform antennae and hard elytra; and the Apaltryes, with filiform antennae and soft elytra. Others have the tarsi four or five-jointed; as the Lucifuges, with variable antennae and hard elytra; and the Blistering-flies, with variable antennae and soft elytra. Others again have the Clavatari four-jointed; as the Rostricornes, with antennae on the beak; the Wood-eaters, with setiform antennae; the Teretiformes, with clavated antennae, and a body often cylindrical, and the club solid; the Planiformes, with granulated antennae and a flattened body; and the Herbivori, with filiform or moniliform antennae and a swollen body. A few have the tarsi three-jointed, as the Coccinelle. The Orthoptera have four wings, the upper hard and the lower folded longitudinally. They include the Forficulae, having the anus terminated by a forceps; the Blattae, with a flattened body and the head retiring below the coxal rings; the Mantidae and Spectres, with a very long corset; and the Leapers, with cylindrical body and long hinder legs formed for jumping.
2. The Insects without jaws are subdivided into Hemiptera, Lepidoptera, Diptera, and APTERA. The Hemiptera have four wings frequently crossed, and a jointed beak; and include the Frontirostres, having the beak rising from the fore part of the head; the Collirostres, with the beak appearing to grow from the neck; and the Planipennae, with the wings not crossed and spreading. The Lepidoptera have four wings covered with scales and a spiral trunk; they include the Butterflies, with the antennae terminated by a solid mass; the Hesperiae, with the antennae curved at their extremity; the Fusicornes, with the antennae swelling towards the middle; and the Seticornes, with setaceous antennae. The Diptera have only two wings; and include the Hydropteryx, with filiform or plumose antennae and a trunk; the Sarcomystes, with a fleshy retractile trunk, terminated by two lips; the Selerosomes, with very short antennae, a horned projecting sucker, but no trunk; and the Gad flies, with short antennae, and neither sucker nor trunk. The APTERA have no wings: they include the Parasitical insects, or Fleas, Lice, and Mites.
It is not surprising that naturalists of taste and genius, from the gradation that seems to take place among the works of nature, should have been led to form the notion that there exists in nature a regular series or chain of beings, the links of which, if we could discover them all, would be found to resemble each other so nearly, as only to exhibit to the superficial observer a few shades of difference. Natura non per saltum movet, has become a sort of axiom in natural history.
The notion of a chain of being is alluring, and does not want arguments in its favour. The Esquimaux Indian, or the inhabitant of Terra del Fuego, seems scarcely superior in form, and very little in intellect, to the Oran Ota; the Platypus, the flying Lemur, flying Squirrels, and, still more, the Bats, appear to form the connecting links between quadrupeds and birds; while the Seals, the Walruses, and the whole order of Cete, connect the former with the fishes. In this latter class, the Flying Fish, in its capability of supporting itself in the air, seems to approach the feathered tribes, while some of these, as the Penguins, in their habits and manner of life, bear some distant resemblance to fishes. Again, the Siren and the Eels so nearly resemble each other, that it has been disputed whether the former should be reckoned among the Amphibia or the Fishes; while one species of Lizard, (Lacerta lumbricoides), is so like an earth-worm, as apparently to connect the Amphibia and the Vermes. Farther, the diminutive Humming-bird (Trochilus exilis), and the Humble Humble Bee, (*Apis terrestris*), are so nearly alike, both in size and manner of life, as to form no very exceptionable links of union between the birds and insects.
If we compare the vegetable tribes with some of the inferior classes of animals, we shall perceive many points of resemblance, which may seem to indicate a continuance of the same chain. Besides the *Mimosa pudica* and *Dionaea muscipula*, already mentioned, the *Hedyarum gyrans*, or moving plant, is a remarkable instance of the mobility of vegetables; the carrion flower (*Stapelia hirsuta*), and some species of *morch*, bear the odour of putrid animal substances; while, on the other hand, the *Mantis sicifolia* might be mistaken for a dried leaf; several species of *Pennatula* (sea pens) and *Sertularia*, for sponges; the *Madrepora fungites* (mushroom madrepora), for a petrified mushroom; and the *Tubularia magnifica*, and *Actinia*, when expanded, for the most beautiful full-blown flowers.
Lastly, on comparing the mineral kingdom with the classes of organized beings, we find several so nearly resembling stones, as scarcely to be distinguished from them.
Though the view which we have given above, of the circumstances that have led naturalists to form the idea of a regular chain of beings, is species; it will not bear the scrutiny of a strict examination. The resemblances which we have pointed out, are more apparent than real; and anatomy and chemistry, added to a more accurate acquaintance with the works of nature, have proved, that those links which, to superficial observers, appear most allied, are yet separated by considerable chasms. In fact, if we were to admit these resemblances as ever so accurate, they would lead us to form, not one chain, but many.
It must be considered as a very difficult, though a very curious problem, to ascertain the number of species at present known throughout the several subdivisions of nature. From the different modes in which different naturalists have distributed the objects of their research, and from the additions that are perpetually made to our knowledge, it may be impossible to fix the precise number of known species at any given time; but we may make a tolerably near approximation to the truth; and this we shall now attempt, going through the several kingdoms, classes, and orders, as they have been treated of in the former parts of this work.
I. IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM.
A. MAN,
B. MAMMALIA.
1. Primates, 100
2. Bruta, 30
3. Ferre, 184
4. Glires, 124
5. Pecora, 82
So that the number of species in this kingdom may be estimated at about 22,924, or in round numbers about 23,000 (B).
II. IN THE VEGETABLE KINGDOM.
A. MONANDRIA.
1. Monogynia, 73
2. Digynia, 10
B. DIANDRIA.
1. Monogynia, 374
2. Digynia, 5
3. Trigynia, 52
C. TRIANDRIA.
1. Monogynia, 477
2. Digynia, 546
3. Trigynia, 32
D. TETRANDRIA.
(B) The numbers here given differ in several instances from those which we have seen in some late works on this subject. Thus, M. La Cépéde, in a note to the discourse delivered by him at the close of his course of Natural History, states the numbers of some classes as follows: *Mammalia*, 416 species; *Birds*, 2534; *Reptiles*, 125; *Serpents*, 180; *Fishes*, 992; in all 4247. ### NATURAL HISTORY
#### D. TETRANDRIA. 1. Monogynia, - 527 2. Digynia, - 14 3. Trigynia, - 521 4. Tetragynia, - 51
**593 species.**
#### E. PENTANDRIA. 1. Monogynia, - 1537 2. Digynia, - 652 3. Trigynia, - 121 4. Tetragynia, - 8 5. Pentagynia, - 173 6. Decagynia, - 1 7. Polygynia, - 2
**2494**
#### F. HEXANDRIA. 1. Monogynia, - 699 2. Digynia, - 5 3. Trigynia, - 69 4. Hexagynia, - 2 5. Polygynia, - 10
**785**
#### G. HEPTANDRIA. 1. Monogynia, - 25 2. Digynia, - 3 3. Trigynia, - 2 4. Heptagynia, - 1
**31**
#### H. OCTANDRIA. 1. Monogynia, - 377 2. Digynia, - 11 3. Trigynia, - 95 4. Tetragynia, - 10
**493**
#### I. ENNEANDRIA. 1. Monogynia, - 40 2. Trigynia, - 8 3. Hexagynia, - 1
**49**
#### K. DECANDRIA. 1. Monogynia, - 452 2. Digynia, - 131 3. Trigynia, - 142 4. Pentagynia, - 205 5. Decagynia, - 7
**927**
#### L. DODECANDRIA. 1. Monogynia, - 100 2. Digynia, - 6 3. Trigynia, - 138 4. Tetragynia, - 7 5. Pentagynia, - 6 6. Dodecagynia, - 14
**271 species.**
#### M. ICOSANDRIA. 1. Monogynia, - 133 2. Digynia, - 16 3. Trigynia, - 4 4. Pentagynia, - 102 5. Polygynia, - 91
**346**
#### N. POLYANDRIA. 1. Monogynia, - 259 2. Digynia, - 11
#### O. DIDYNAMIA. 1. Gymnospermia, - 441 2. Angiospermia, - 640
**1081**
#### P. TETRADYNAMIA. 1. Siliculose, - 168 2. Siliquose, - 258
**426**
#### Q. MONADELPHIA. 1. Triandria, - 17 2. Pentandria, - 134 3. Heptandria, - 120 4. Octandria, - 2 5. Decandria, - 51 6. Endecandria, - 4 7. Dodecandria, - 33 8. Polyandria, - 331
**692**
#### R. DIADELPHIA. 1. Pentandria, - 1 2. Hexandra, - 15 3. Octandra, - 42 4. Decandra, - 652
**710**
#### S. POLYADELPHIA. 1. Pentandra, - 3 2. Dodecandra, - 3 3. Icosandra, - 4 4. Polyandra, - 55
**65**
#### T. SYNGENESIA. 1. Polygamia Æqualis, - 439 2. Pol. Superflua, - 441 3. Pol. Frustanea, - 116 4. Pol. Necessaria, - 97 5. Pol. Segregata, - 22 6. Monogamia, - 88
**1194**
#### V. GYNANDRIA. 1. Diandra, - 155 2. Triandra, - 6 3. Tetrandria, - 1 4. Pentandra, - 42 5. Hexandra, - 23 6. Octandra, - 1 7. Decandra, - 7 8. Dodecandra, - 1 9. Polyandra, - 50
**286**
#### U. MONOECIA. 1. Monandra, - 16 2. Diandra, - 8 3. Triandra, - 99 4. Tetrandria, - 49 5. Pentandra, - 41 6. Hexandra, - 4 7. Heptandra, - 1 8. Polyandra, - 52 9. Monadelphia; - 78
**10. Syngenesia,**
W. Dioecia. 1. Monandria, - 1 2. Diandria, - 36 3. Triandria, - 17 4. Tetrandria, - 21 5. Pentandria, - 19 6. Hexandria, - 33 7. Octandria, - 7 8. Enneandria, - 4 9. Decandria, - 7 10. Dodecandria, - 14 11. Polyandria, - 19 12. Monadelphia, - 26 13. Syngenesia, - 5 14. Gynandria, - 9
X. Polygamia. 1. Monoecea, - 181 2. Diecea, - 26 3. Tricea, - 16
Y. Cryptogamia. 1. Filices, - 267 2. Musci, - 268 3. Alge, - 467 4. Fungi, - 465
Z. Palmae, - 14
Total, 14,807 (c).
III. IN THE MINERAL KINGDOM.
Minerals are divided into four great classes, viz. Earths and Stones, Salts, Combustibles, and Metallic Ores.
Earths and Stones. 1. Diamond genus, - 1 2. Zircon, - 2 3. Siliceous, - 62 4. Argillaceous, - 29 5. Magnesian, - 17 6. Calcareous, - 22 7. Barytic, - 2 8. Strontian, - 2
B. Salts. 1. Sulphates, - 6 2. Nitrates, - 1 3. Muriates, - 3 4. Carbonates, - 2 5. Borates, - 2 6. Fluates, - 1
C. Combustibles. 1. Sulphur, - 1 2. Bituminous, - 6 3. Graphite, - 2
D. Metallic Ores are divided into 24 genera, each metal forming a genus, - 106
Total, 267 species*. *See Mi. terminology.
Hence, taking the whole number of known animals at 23,000, that of vegetables at 50,000 and that of minerals 267, the whole number of known species of natural objects will be 73,267.
II. Though the classification of natural bodies is of hints for the highest importance towards making us acquainted studying with unknown species, and distinguishing them from those which we already know; this alone is not sufficient to form a naturalist. His principal object should be to learn the habits, manners, and uses of the objects which he is studying; and he may perhaps be assisted in this object by the following observations.
1. In Zoology, or the natural history of the animal Zoology kingdom, it is necessary to ascertain both the distinctive characters of each individual animal, and its peculiar habits, properties and uses.
The naturalist first learns that the sheep, for instance, is in the class mammalia, being one of those animals that suckle their young; in the order pecora, because it is hoofed, and has no cutting teeth in the upper jaw; and that it is distinguished from other animals of the same order, by its having several blunt wedge-like incisive fore-teeth in the lower jaw only, hollow reclined horns, and no tusks.
This information would satisfy many, who call themselves naturalists; but it is far from being all that is required; the philosophical investigator of Nature inquires into its habits; as its food, its period of gestation, its season of lambing, the weather and climate most suited to its health and vigour. He endeavours to learn what produces the difference in its fleece, whether climate, food, or some peculiarity in the breed; and is anxious to ascertain what variety is most disposed to fatten, and what food effects this speedily; with many other very useful particulars.
The information of the first kind is of consequence, and even necessary in many cases; but that of the latter is most useful.
If a traveller discovers an animal possessing any useful property, or producing any useful drug, if he have not the first kind of information, he gives so confused and inaccurate a description of it, that others, mistaking the animal, discredit the author's account, and the world loses the benefit of his discovery.
2. Botany, or the natural history of the vegetable Botany kingdom, in the usual acceptation of the term, implies only
(c) This number, drawn from the article Botany, compared with the three first volumes of Wildenow's edition of the Species Plantarum, and with Persoon's edition of the Systema Vegetabilium, of Linné, is certainly very far below the truth. Many years ago, the number of known species was reckoned at above twenty thousand, and there is reason to believe that it exceeds fifty thousand. Objects only the knowledge of the distinctive characters of plants; and he who knows the greatest number, and is most accurate in determining the different species, is accounted the best botanist.
This however constitutes but a small part of the science; there is another distinct department, which may properly be termed the philosophy of botany, which is both more interesting and more useful. This includes the knowledge of the structure, or the anatomy of plants; and the knowledge of the uses, or functions of their various parts, as of the leaves, the bark, the pith, the roots, the juices, &c.; which is called the physiology of plants. It includes also an acquaintance with the soil and climate adapted to different vegetables, their mode of propagation, and the various uses to which their several parts or productions may be applied.
Botany, in the first sense, which may be called practical botany, is subservient, and absolutely necessary to the study of the philosophy of botany; for no one that is unacquainted with the classification of plants can either convey to others his own information, or himself receive the benefit of that of others, respecting either the structure and economy or the habits and the uses of such plants, as may have been investigated.
If medical virtues are discovered in any vegetable production; without the accuracy of the practical botanist, to ascertain and describe the particular plant which affords it, the discovery is often lost; or perhaps, what is worse, the virtues are attributed to a different plant, and it is only by repeated failures, and in some cases after much mischief, that the error is detected.
It is evident that the same may happen to the agriculturist, the dyer, or any other artizan, who has discovered in the vegetable kingdom the means of improving his art, but has not botanical knowledge sufficient to give an accurate character of the plant, to which he is indebted for his discovery.
3. In Mineralogy, or the natural history of the mineral kingdom, almost half the students are of that class, who content themselves with collecting, and being able to arrange systematically the minerals they meet with. But in this department of natural history, as well as the other two, which we have considered, something more than arrangement is required.
It is the man who can analyze, and separate the component parts of mineral productions; who knows the art of assaying, and who knows a priori the probable site of a quarry, or a mine, and can tell the direction of a stratum of coal, or of marble, that we may call a mineralogist.
The natural history of the mineral kingdom includes geology, or the data upon which are founded the different theories of the formation of the earth. It includes the knowledge of those facts, upon which the art of mining, and the art of separating and purifying metals, is founded; and its object is to teach likewise the properties of those metals, as well as of the earths, and other mineral productions, when separated and in their simple state.
With respect to the utility of the study of natural history, we have unavoidably given many instances of it, in considering the object of the science. We need therefore add but few others.
The grazier knows the advantage of attending to the habits and distinctive marks of our domestic animals, and all. It is natural history, though not often studied scientifically, that teaches him what variety of sheep to prefer; by what means to obtain a variety of cows, remarkable for their quantity of milk; how to choose the stock to the best adapted to his land, and what is the best food for them during winter.
Much benefit is likely to accrue from the attention lately paid to the cultivation of what are termed the artificial grasses. Instead of sowing his hay seeds indiscriminately, the grazier may select only such grasses as are, by observation, found to be most suited to his soil and cattle.
The farmer's knowledge of the proper succession of crops, the best times for sowing them, when to weed, and with what to manure, as well as how to destroy both weeds and insects, is the knowledge of a naturalist; and surely he who is scientifically acquainted with the growth of plants, knowing what part the soil acts in vegetation, and what is the aliment most required by them, will have great advantage over the mere empirical farmer, who has no better reason for what he does, than that his father did the same before him.
By studying the natural history of insects, we learn the habits of such as are noxious and injurious, and thence derive the means of destroying them.
The minerologist has often enriched individual proprietors of land, and benefited his country, by the discovery of mines; he is enabled to direct the planners of canals by warning them of obstacles; and his knowledge has aided the physician in ascertaining the virtues of minerals, and of mineral waters.
In the arts, a knowledge of natural history prevents that confusion, and those innumerable errors that must be committed, when the natural productions which are employed cannot be accurately discriminated from others.
It is to the naturalist that we are many times indebted for the introduction of foreign animals and foreign plants into our own country. Wheat, oats, barley, and other vegetables, which are now become necessary to our existence, were not originally of British growth. The potato, now so general and so useful, was first introduced into this country by Gerard, a noted botanist, and was for some time cultivated in his garden as a rarity. The sugar-cane, the bread-fruit tree, the farinaceous palms, the flax and hemp, have all been transported by naturalists of the present day, to regions where they never grew before.
Besides the above, and many similar instances of advantage to be derived from studying the different branches of natural history, these two incalculable benefits necessarily arise to the student himself, from attending to the whole, or any part of the science; namely, a power of abstracting the mind, and reasoning methodically; and a habit of contemplating the Creator in his works.
Our limits do not permit us to enter further into the fertile topic of the utility and advantages of natural history. Its utility, in a moral and religious point of view, has been ably illustrated by Mr Ray, in his "Wisdom of God;" by Mr Bingley, in the introduction. We have stated it to be one of the principal objects of natural history, to teach the mode of preserving specimens. This art, called by the French Taxidermie, is exceedingly curious, and would well deserve a much fuller consideration than we can here allot to it. We shall confine our attention on this subject entirely to the animal kingdom, and even here we must be very brief.
The art of preparing and mounting the skins of animals appears to be pretty old; but it made no great progress before the 17th century, when Reaumur made some attempts to preserve the specimens from the attacks of insects. In the Journal de Physique for 1773, there is a memoir addressed to the Royal Society of London, by M. Kuckhan, on the methods of preparing birds, which is very curious, but is liable to many objections. In the same volume is a memoir by Mauduit, principally respecting the means of preserving animal specimens from the attacks of insects. His preservatives are of a poisonous nature; and, of course, their use is dangerous, while they do not appear to have been attended with the expected success. The arsenical soap of Becceur, much celebrated about the same time, is liable to similar objections.
The latest, and probably the best work on this subject, is that published a few years ago by M. Nicolas; and from this the following observations are derived.
The instruments employed in the preparation of specimens are much the same as those used by anatomists in their ordinary dissections, consisting of small knives or scalpels, forceps or pincers of various forms, probes, needles, and pins or wires.
The preservatives employed by M. Nicolas to protect the specimens from insects, are principally of two kinds: 1. Sulphur, which he applies to the skins by means of fumigation, thus impregnating them with sulphurous acid; 2. A liquor for macerating the skins, another liquor for rubbing over the hair, and a pomatum for anointing the inside of the skin. The first liquor is prepared by steeping a pound and a half of powdered oak bark, and four ounces of powdered alum, in twenty English pints of cold water, for two days, taking care to shake the mixture from time to time. The pomatum is prepared of a pound of white soap, half a pound of caustic potash, four ounces of powdered alum, two English pints of water, four ounces of oil of petroleum, and the same of camphire. The soap, cut into small pieces, is put into an earthen pipkin, over a moderate fire; the water poured over it; and when the whole is formed into a sort of soft paste, the alum and then the oil are added; the whole well stirred together, removed from the fire, and when it is nearly cold the camphire is added; being before hand rubbed down in a mortar with a little spirit of wine. The pomatum, thus prepared, must be kept in glass vessels, well stopp'd; and, when used, is to be lowered with water to the consistence of thin cream, and laid on the skins by means of a pencil brush.
The liquor employed for preserving the fur is prepared by infusing an ounce of white soap shred very small, two ounces of camphire broken into very small pieces, the same of colocynth or bitter-apple grossly powdered, in two English pints of spirit of wine, for four or five days, shaking the vessel from time to time, after which the liquor is to be filtered through blotting-paper.
M. Nicolas has given directions for preparing and preserving specimens of all the various classes of animals. We shall, as far as our limits permit, briefly follow him through each.
In skinning quadrupeds, he proposes to make an incision along the middle of the back, from the haunches to the shoulders, except in those animals whose skin is very thick and hard, or is set with spines, in which the opening must be made at the belly in the usual manner. In detaching the skin from the flesh, we must occasionally employ the knife, and as we proceed, must insert tow between the skin and flesh, to prevent soiling the fur. When the whole body is detached, and the skin drawn down as far as the ankles, the nose, and the tip of the tail, the whole body is to be cut away except the head and extremities, which are left to give a better form and support to the specimen. All the fleshy and fatty parts, the brain, and the eyes, however, must be cut away, and nothing left but the bones, the spaces between which and the skin must be stuffed with tow cut fine, and a little soft clay must be put within the orbits, in order to fix the artificial eyes.
Before stuffing, the skin is to be steeped for several days, from five to fifteen, according to the size of the animal, in the liquor first described, and after steeping, the inside is to be well anointed with the pomatum.
When the legs and head are stuffed, the cavity of the skull filled with very dry moss, and the eyes fixed, wires are to be passed through the inside of the body, the extremities, and the head and tail, in the following manner. Three iron wires of a moderate size, well annealed, at least twice as long as the animal, are to be twisted together for nearly half the length, and while one wire is left straight, the other two are to be bent at each end, so as to form a cross. When the skin is turned, ready for stuffing, these wires are to be placed within it in such a manner as that the straight wire shall pass through the head and tail, and the crossing wires through the extremities, coming out at the ball of each foot; and in this way after the cavity is filled up with tow, and the open part neatly stitched, the specimen may be fixed on a board in its natural position. Nothing remains now but to impregnate the fur with the bitter liquor last described, which is done by means of a sponge, with which the whole outside is to be well washed, then covered with folds of linen, and dried in the shade.
The art of preserving birds is perhaps the most curious part of the present subject, and is that to which the most attention has been given. M. Nicolas has explained at some length the mode recommended by M. Kuckhan in the Journal de Physique; that by Dr. Lettsom, in the Naturalist's and Traveller's Companion; that of Mauduit, inserted in the fifth number of the Encyclopédie Méthodique; and that of Dufresne, adopted by M. Daudin, and inserted in his Traité d'Ornithologie; after which he details his own.
He describes three methods of preparing birds, according as we can procure fresh-killed specimens, whole dried skins brought from abroad, or detached parts of several Mode of several individuals of the same species. We shall here preserving confine ourselves to the first of these, as being best adapted to the generality of our readers.
When a fresh-killed bird is procured, it is to be placed upon a table, upon its back, with the tail turned towards the operator, who, after having separated with his fingers the feathers which cover the belly towards the right and left, is to make with a scalpel, a longitudinal incision through the skin, from the point of the breast-bone to about the middle of the belly. The edges of the skin are now to be raised with a pair of flat pincers, on each side, carefully separating the flesh as occasion may require, by the knife, and inserting a little cotton from time to time, to prevent soiling the feathers. In this way the skin is to be detached from the shoulders and neck, and as much as possible of the body laid bare, after which a pretty strong thread is to be passed through the nostrils, and tied under the lower mandible, leaving the ends of the thread when tied together, at least twice as long as the wreck. Now, holding the bird by the thread, with the back turned towards him, the operator is to hold together the feathers on the two edges of the incision as well as those that cover the breast, and pushing the head of the bird inwards with his thumb so as to form the neck into an arch, is to cut this off near the body, detach from it the gullet and wind-pipe, and all the fleshy parts, both of the neck and head, by drawing the skin as far back as possible towards the beak, and cutting off the neck-bones close to the head; he is to empty the skull with a little iron instrument in the form of an ear-picker, and clean it properly with cotton. He is now to wrap cotton or tow about the head and neck, and to separate the rest of the skin, leaving the pinions and bones of the wings, and legs, and the tail, as directed for quadrupeds. After this has been done, the skin is to be turned out like a glove, with all its feathers turned inwards, all the natural openings of the bird, as well as any shot-holes, &c. made in killing the bird, are to be stitched up with a needle and fine thread; then the whole skin as well as the bones, are to be washed with a strong infusion of tan with a little alum, by means of a pencil-brush, and the skin inclosed in a covered vessel that it may not dry too hastily.
In ten or twelve hours time we may wash the skin and bones again with the astringent liquor. Twice washing in this manner will be sufficient for very small birds, but those of a middling size will require maceration in the first liquor employed for quadrupeds during two days, and four or five days for those of larger size.
The skins being well impregnated with the astringent liquor, are to be smeared with the soapy pomatum, have artificial eyes fixed in the orbits by means of wax, and stuffed and mounted much in the same manner as quadrupeds, except that the wires employed for this purpose are rather differently bended.
Great nicety is required in fixing the different parts of a bird in its natural position, and in arranging the feathers smoothly and evenly. M. Nicolas directs thin plates of lead, to be placed so as to secure the wings in the proper position till the whole is completely arranged.
To preserve the feet and legs of birds, he anoints them with linseed oil mixed with camphire, and applied a little warm.
The last operation consists in enveloping the bird Mode of with bandages of muslin or fine linen, pinned round the preserving neck, breast, body, and rump, as well to secure the specimen's feathers in their places during drying, as to allow of their being drenched with the bitter liquor to preserve them from the attacks of insects.
The different orders of insects require different modes of preparation. The following is a summary of our author's mode of preserving each kind.
For the coleoptera and hemiptera.—One of these insects, as soon as caught, is to be carefully wrapt in very fine paper, with the ends of the paper curled round to prevent the animal from moving; and this roll of paper including the insect, is to be put into a little box of pasteboard till the insect-hunter returns home. Each insect is then to be held between the thumb and forefinger of the left hand, the wings to be raised by means of a pin, and held open with the middle finger, while the abdomen of the animal is slit open from the back, and the entrails abstracted by means of an iron wire, and the cavity as well as the edges of the wound are to be washed with the bitter spirituous liquor described in N° 36. by means of a very fine pencil. Then a small cotton plug impregnated with oil of petroleum is to be stuffed into the cavity, with the point of a wire, till the cavity is sufficiently full, when the wings are to be suffered to return to their natural situation, and the insect is ready for mounting. For mounting these insects, M. Nicolas employs little squares of card, through the middle and across which he passes a small iron wire well annealed, and about the size of a harpsicord string. A very fine needle is now to be passed through the animal, as near as possible to the corselet; and after having covered the upright iron wire with a light coating of gum-water, he passes it through the hole made by the needle, and fixes the animal in such a manner that its feet may rest upon the card.
For the lepidoptera.—He recommends them to be put, when caught, into a triangular piece of paper, and afterwards into a pasteboard box of the same form, opening with a hinge. For mounting these insects it is sufficient to perforate their bodies with a fine needle, armed with a double thread impregnated with the bitter spirituous liquor, making the needle enter by the head and come out at the end of the belly, and then cutting the thread with scissors. The insect thus prepared is mounted by means of a card, as directed for the coleoptera, and a piece of wood about an inch long, seven or eight lines broad, and a proper thickness, is placed below the wings on each side very near the body, and the wings are kept down by means of plates of lead.
In the preparation of specimens of fishes, M. Nicolas Fisher prefers the method of Mauduit to that given by Dr Lettsom in the Naturalist's and Traveller's Companion; but as Mauduit's method requires much skill and address, he recommends the following, especially for the flat kinds of fish.
He makes a longitudinal incision with scissors along the belly of the fish from the anus to the lower mandible, and then gradually and carefully separates the skin from the flesh with the assistance of the blade and flat handle of a scalpel, till he has laid bare one side of the animal. He then passes to the other side, proceeding in the same manner to detach the skin from that part, after which he separates the head from the body with a pair Mode of pair of scissors, and clears away the fleshy parts attached preserving to the head. He now detaches the skin from the back specimen as far as the anus, and then laying the fish on the table, he passes the flat handle of the scalpel below the skin that covers the tail and neighbouring parts, in order to separate it completely. This done, he pushes the tail inwards, and with the assistance of the scalpel and drawing the skin very gently, he detaches this as near as possible to the end of the tail, which he then separates with scissors, thus leaving the skin with nothing attached to it but the head and extremity of the tail. It only remains now to clear away the ears and eyes, and properly clean the head.
The skin is now steeped for some days in the tanning liquor, then laid on a table, and when the head is properly arranged, a model of the body of the fish made of soft clay, mixed with fine sand, is placed within the skin, which is made to fit neatly over it, is then bound with little bandages of linen, and suffered to dry. When the clay is quite dry and hard, and the skin has acquired so much firmness as to retain its proper form, it is to be gently beaten all over to break the clay, so that it may be withdrawn through the opening. When this is done, the whole inside of the skin and head is to be smeared by means of a pencil brush with the soap pomatum. After which it is to be entirely filled with cut tow, and the opening stitched up as neatly as possible. Then artificial eyes are to be placed in the orbits by means of soft wax, and the whole body is to be covered with a coat of white varnish prepared by digesting four ounces of clear turpentine, three ounces of sandarac, and one ounce of mastich in tears, with eight ounces of oil of turpentine, and four ounces of spirit of wine, in a bottle placed in a water bath.
In preparing specimens of reptiles,—after what has been said above, little direction will be required. The skin is to be stript backwards as far as the head, which is to be cut off and cleaned as in other specimens; after which the skin is to be macerated, anointed within with pomatum, stuffed and varnished as before.
The crustacea, including crabs, lobsters, star-fish, and sea-urchins, require but little preparation. In crabs the shell, and in lobsters the tail, is to be separated from the rest of the body; as much as possible of the meat is to be picked out from the body and large claws; the whole interior is to be smeared with the soap pomatum, and after having united the parts, the whole is to be suffered to dry.
The star-fish and urchins, if taken alive, should be killed by plunging them in spirit of wine, and afterwards drying them in the sun or in an oven moderately heated.
As to worms the only mode of preserving the mollusca, or those with naked bodies, is to keep them in spirits; and of the testacea or shell-fish, the only part thought worth preserving is the shell; for the preparation of which, see Conchology.
The above is but an imperfect abstract of M. Nicolas's "Methode de preparer et conserver les Animaux de toutes les classes," which is illustrated by plates, and is well deserving the attention of collectors of specimens.
There is also an excellent essay on this subject by Dufresne, under Taxidermie, in the Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle.
It will be expected that in this introductory article History on natural history, we should say something of its rise and progress. Much of our observations on this subject have been anticipated in preceding articles on the particular branches of natural history, so that little remains for us to do in this place than to give a general sketch of the early history of this branch of physics.
We have reason to believe that the works of nature Jewish have formed the favourite study among the ingenious and inquisitive from the earliest ages of the world. From the continual allusions to the Creator's works, and the beautiful metaphors drawn from them, which abound in the inspired writings of the Jewish prophets and poets, especially those of Job, Isaiah, Daniel and David, we know that these sages were well acquainted with natural history, as far at least as observation extended. Solomon, as we are told, was acquainted with all vegetables, "from the cedar of Lebanon to the hyssop that springeth out of the wall;" and probably so wise a man was well acquainted with the other kingdoms of nature. Some writers have gone so far as to assert that Aristotle and Theophrastus learned natural history from the writings of Solomon, though on what data they ground this assertion, we are at a loss to determine.
The principal writers on natural history among the ancients, whose writings have come down to us, are Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Pliny the elder. Of the Aristotle first we may remark with Haller, that his writings on this subject exhibit a continued chain of physical and anatomical facts, which for the most part appear to have been the result of accurate observation. He relied less than any of the ancient naturalists on uncertain and fabulous report; he industriously collected and examined natural bodies, and appears to have himself dissected many animals, especially fishes, or at least to have been present at their dissection. There are even to be found in his writings, references by letters to figures which he employed to illustrate his observations.
Theophrastus wrote chiefly on the natural history of plants and fossils, on winds, and on fire. His works have been edited by Heinsius, but, except in plants, they do not contain much that is worthy of our observation more than what is to be found in the writings of Aristotle.
The natural history of Pliny is a valuable repository of ancient knowledge, which, notwithstanding all its errors and extravagances, we may venture to call after the panegyric of his nephew, a comprehensive and learned work, little less various than nature herself. The author, in the dedication of his work to Vespasian, sensible of the defects with which it abounds, apologises for them, from the consideration that the path which he took had been in a great measure untrodden, and held forth to the traveller few enticements; while some parts of his subject had been so often handled, that readers were become cloyed with them: that it was an arduous task to give what is old an appearance of novelty; to add weight and authority to what is new; to cast a lustre upon subjects that have been obscured by time; to render acceptable what is become trite and disgusting; to obtain credit to doubtful relations; and, in a word, to represent every thing according to nature, and with all its natural properties. His design must be acknowledged to be grand and noble, and when we consider that the work was composed in the midst of important engagements, The ancients had no idea of methodical or systematic distinctions. As they were acquainted with but few bodies in comparison with the moderns, and attended only to those which were useful to man; they distinguished them only by their usual properties, their native country, their habitations, and the useful purposes to which they might be applied. From the few productions which they described, they were not led to perceive the necessity of searching among them for distinctive marks or relations, which may prevent their being confounded with each other. They doubtless believed that their descriptions were sufficient, and that the names which they imposed would descend with their customs to posterity, without being affected by the disorders and alterations that have changed the face of countries and the seat of empires. But the revolutions that have desolated the fairest regions of the globe, by insulating or displacing their inhabitants, or by confounding them with one another, and altering their language, have frequently almost extinguished the lamp of science. After many ages of ignorance and barbarity, we find in the few works of the ancient naturalists, which have escaped the ravages of war and the devastations of civil discord, little more than uncertainty and obscurity, with respect to those species which they have described. Notwithstanding the labours of numerous commentators, we do not certainly know what species of plant is the cicuta employed by the Greeks for the execution of criminals, and which terminated the life of Socrates. We cannot be sure that the animals, which we find best characterized in the ancient writings, bore the names which we attribute to them; nor are we more certain with respect to the ancient nomenclature of minerals.
As long as studious men cultivated the sciences only through the medium of the writings of the ancients, and attempted nothing beyond the interpretation of these, natural history, like every other branch of physics, remained obscure and confused, and fiction or imagination took the place of facts; but when they perceived the advantage of studying nature herself, and interrogating her by observation, methods were erected, and distinctive characters for the species introduced. This fortunate revolution took place in the 16th century. Cesalpinus first attempted to reduce vegetables to classes, and distinguish them into tribes according to their form.—Gesner, besides the fine hints that he first gave of the constant relation between the structure of the seed and that of the other parts of plants, was the first who attempted any systematic and methodical arrangement of animals. In the 17th century, Morison, Ray, and Rivinus, improved on the hints of Cesalpinus respecting the classification of vegetables; and Aldrovandus, Rhedi, and Swammerdam upon those of Gesner respecting animals; and in a short time this first impulse given to the art of arranging and distinguishing natural bodies by constant characters, was communicated to all those who were employed in the study of nature. Tournefort, profiting by all the attempts towards method and system in the classification of vegetables that had been made before him, advanced a considerable step in botany, by his beautiful method of distinguishing plants according to the form of their flowers and fruits, which he published towards the end of the 17th century.
The same year of the 18th century (1707) gave Linné birth to two men who have advanced the science of Buffon. We need scarcely mention the names of Linné and Buffon. The Swedish naturalist extended his enlarged views through every branch of natural history; he arranged in his Systema Naturae and Systema Vegetabilium all the productions of nature, and distinguished them by characters that were precise and simple; he created a new language for expressing with brevity all these characters, and thus presented to the view, as in a compendious picture, all the properties of bodies. Buffon, proceeding in a different road, treated more copiously the most important parts of natural history, and of the animals that are most nearly allied to man, in a work which the fire of his genius and the brilliancy of his style have rendered a universal favorite. The rival of Aristotle and Pliny, whose genius he seems to have combined in the greatness of his views and extent of his plan, and altogether one of the first writers of his age, he inspired a passion for the study of nature in numbers, who without his works would never have engaged in such a study, and communicated to his countrymen that taste which has ever since survived him.
After what has been given in the particular treatises on natural history in this Encyclopedia, both as to the progress of the science, and the principal works on each department of it, since the time of Linné and Buffon; it is unnecessary for us to trace its progress beyond that period. The advances made within these few years are immense, our stock of information is prodigiously increased, and the modes of study greatly improved and facilitated. The labours of Cuvier, Geoffroy, Lacépéde, Dumont, Dumeril, Lamarck, Duvernois, Sonnini, Bloch, Spallanzani, Esper, Jussieu, Wildenow, Werner, Patrin, St Fond, Brochant, Bronniart, Klaproth, Fourcroy, Vauquelin, Shaw, Latham, Bancroft, Catesby, Ellis, Smith, Withering, Woodville, Kirwan, Playfair, Thomson, Jameson, &c. with the assistance to be derived from the Annales de Museum National, the Naturalist's Miscellany, the Linnean Transactions, and the splendid plates of Merian, Schreber, Curtis, Sowerby, Sotheby, &c. afford ample proofs of the industry and success with which this delightful field has been cultivated, and of the rich harvest that has been derived from the united efforts of so many men of genius and talents.