orders, characterized from some one of the principal genera in each order, has condescended to explain the grounds of his opinions by an arrangement or system, founded on the visible and tangible parts of the plants themselves. From this moment it was evident that no supernatural intelligence had dictated the arrangement; which, notwithstanding its more imposing title, was to be judged of, like all other arrangements, only by its superior ingenuity, accuracy, and utility. It might indeed be more skilfully executed than the system of Linnæus; but still it appealed to the same organs of sense, and submitted to be judged by the same rules. In one view of the subject, all modern systems may indeed be denominated natural, as they are all deduced from some part, property, or peculiarity of the plants themselves: those of Morison, Ray, Herman, and Gartner, from the fruit; of Tournefort, Knaut, and Rivinus, from the corolla; of Magnol, from the calyx; that of Linnæus, chiefly from the number, proportion, and situation of the stamina; and that of Jussieu, from the mode of germination, and situation of the stamina; but principally, like that of Tournefort, from the number and disposition of the petals. It is true, that some of these methods may be greatly preferable to others; but it is equally true, that there is scarcely one of them that does not possess some advantages which the others do not afford, and which have induced their respective authors to give them the preference. Some of them may even approach nearer to a natural system than the rest; or, in other words, may occasion less separation among plants which have a real affinity: others may pay less regard to this object, and may in some degree sacrifice it for the purpose of giving a more correct, extensive, and intelligible nomenclature; but the distinctions on which they are founded are equally natural; although it may not be possible for any method that is confessedly founded upon the sensible phenomena of the vegetable kingdom, whatever its pretensions may be, to unite together the families of plants in the strict natural orders and relative situations, or occasionally to avoid separating those which the general convictions of our senses assure us ought to be united. If, however, it be still asserted that the system of Jussieu is to be preferred, as exhibiting a more exact conformity to the affinities of nature than that of Linnæus, may we be allowed to ask upon what this superiority is founded, and in what particular part of the system it consists? Are the affinities of plants more likely primarily to result from the petals, or from the stamina? from the part which shelters the immediate organs of reproduction, or from those organs themselves, connected as they are with the very nature and fructification of the plant? Supposing a doubt to arise whether a plant ought to be arranged with such as agreed with it in the corolla, or in the stamina, how would a skilful naturalist be inclined to decide? or which would he consider as the most powerful affinity? In whatever manner the orders of the two Jussieus may have been formed, thef exhibit, at least, as many incongruities to the general observer, as the classes and orders of Linnæus. What would such an observer, unacquainted with the secret chain employed by these authors, say to the ion in the same class of the Palma with the Junci? the Musa with the. the Hydrocharides? the Protea with the Atriplices? the Jasminea with the Scrophularia? the Rhododendra with the Campanulacea? or, in short, to the many tribes apparently wholly discordant from each other, in conformation, in habit, in qualities which occur in almost every class? Can the system of Linnæus exhibit any associ ations more revolting to his conceptions, or which would tend more decisively to convince him that, whatever may be their pretensions, these systems are in fact equally artificial; and that their assumed natural affinities are nothing more than a partial resemblance, founded on some peculiarity of habit or conformation, which may serve to decide its situation in a nomenclature, but has often little or no relation to the real and essential nature of the plant?' Remarks on Lichen Scaber and some of its Allies. By the Rev. Hugh Davies, F.L.S.-These annotations, which bear a constant reference to the plates of Dillenius, will be found to remove the confusion that has taken place in the definitions which Linné, Lightfoot, Hudson, and others, have given of Lichen lanatus, pubescens,- bicolor, &c.: but the particulars cannot be distinctly stated without transcribing the whole article; which, moreover, is not penned in the happiest style of elucidation. Strepsiptera, a new Order of Insects, proposed; and the Characters of the Order, with those of its Genera, laid down. By the Rev. William Kirby, F.L.S.Though somewhat diffuse, this is an elaborate and ingenious dissertation, and extremely satisfactory; since it establishes, beyond a doubt, the propriety, if not the necessity, of instituting a new order, in which two very anomalous genera may be scientifically arranged. We subscribe, also, to the author's sentiments relative to the paucity of orders in the Linnéan system of entomology in general;a circumstance which frequently proves very embarrassing to the student. In his construction of Strepsiptera, which he unfolds with distinctness and ability, Mr. Kirby has derived considerable assistance from the curious and judicious communications of Professor Peck, of Harward University, New England; and from the masterly pencil of Mr. Bauer, of Kew Garden, who (says Mr. K.) has enriched this paper with such a drawing as I believe has scarcely a parallel in entomology.' The title of the proposed order is deduced from the Greek στρεψις and περον, on account of the distortion of the elytra of the insects belonging to it. With respect to the place of Strepsiptera in the system, it seems to the author that this order should follow Coleoptera; for, its metamorphosis being different from that of Orthoptera and Hemiptera, and nearer to that of Coleoptera, this seems its most natural station, considered as an elytophorous order; especially since, if it be inserted between Orthoptera and Hemiptera, with both of which it has some affi R 3 nity, nity, it would interrupt the series of semicomplete metamorphosis, by which, besides other characters, those two orders are so closely united.' The essential, artificial, and natural characters of this order are defined with great minuteness; as are those of the two genera, Stylops and Xenos, the latter comprehending two species, namely, X. Rossii, and X. Peckii. For the detailed illustration of this outline, we must refer to the original communication, and its accompanying figures. A Monograph of the British Species of the Genus Cholera. By William Spence, Esq. F.L.S.-Mr. Spence has here favoured us with another flattering testimony of the ability and perseverance with which entomological researches are now prosecuted in this country. Of the eighteen species which the ingenious monographist has accurately discriminated, five are denominated from British amateurs; namely, Cholera Leachii,—Kirbii,— Marshami,-Watsoni, and-Wilkinii. The critical annotations, with which the scientific exposition is interspersed, likewise bespeak much discerument, and an intimate acquaintance with the subject. Description of a new Species of the Genus Mus, belonging to the Section of Pouched Rats. By John Vaughan Thompson, Esq. F.L.S. In this species, which is said to be not very uncommon in Trinidad, the two upper teeth are placed without the opening of the mouth, the cheek-pouches are formed by a duplicature of the common integuments, the body is covered with fine lanceolate spines, and the tail is remarkably long. The habits of this tribe of rats are singular and curious: where numerous, they do incalculable mischief in barns and granaries; for, not satisfied with what they can eat on the spot, they stow away and carry off in their cheek-pouches no inconsiderable quantity, to be deposited in their retreats for times when food is not to be procured from without.' An Analysis of Satin Spar, from Alston Moor, in Cumberland. By the Rev. John Holme, A.M. F.L.S.-If we may rely on this author's analysis, the ingredients of satin spar are, carbonate of lime, 95.75, and carbonate of manganese, 4.25.100. Description of Mus Castorides, a new Species. By the Rev. E. J. Burrow, A.M. F.L.S.—Mr. Burrow classes this animal under the genus Mus; between which and Castor it seems to form a connecting link. As he had frequent opportunities of observing it, we could have welcomed a more circumstantial account of its manners and habits than that which will be found in these two very succinct paragraphs: • When teased or disturbed, it uttered a weak cry, but was good tempered, and not easily roused to resistance. • The The method of feeding was the same with that of most of the Glires, but the fore-part of the body was very little raised.' On Woodsia, a new Genus of Ferns. By Robert Brown, Esq. F.R.S. Lib. L.S.- Under this new appellation, which Mr. Brown has selected in honour of his friend, Mr. Joseph Woods, are included Polypodium ilvense and P. hyperboreum; whose involucrum, being inserted under the sorus, so as to surround it completely at the base, gives rise to a new generic character, but which, owing to certain peculiarities of structure, remained for a long while undiscovered. The two species are so nearly allied, that Mr. Brown entertains some doubt of any very essential difference. An Account of four rare Species of British Birds. By Mr. William Bullock, F. L.S.-The four species in question are, Stryx nyctea, or Snowy Owl, Tringa Calidris, or Duslay Sandpiper, Hirundo Pratincola, or Austrian Pratincole, and Anas Africana, or African Teal. The first three have been found to occur in some of the Orkney islands. As the history of the fourth is still somewhat doubtful, it may be proper to quote the writer's own words: This species of duck, several of which have come within my knowledge, were all purchased at Leadenhall Market during the winter season, and were said to be taken in Lincolnshire. Dr. Latham, in his very excellent work on birds, says they inhabit the rivers in Egypt; which, if so, is a remarkable circumstance, as few natives of so warm a country could be supposed to migrate so far north at that season. Buffon figures it in the Planches Enluminées, tó which Dr. Latham refers his African Teal. That figure is so good as to leave no doubt of its being the bird; otherwise the var. A. of the Anas Fuligula of Lath. Syn. (Anas Nyroca of Gmel. Syst. Nat. and of Lath. Ind. Orn. ii. 869. 91.) might be mistaken for it. Indeed I cannot help thinking that Dr. Latham has described the same bird twice under different names. In the account of the latter it is said to inhabit the river Don, which is certainly the most probable residence of a bird that visits this country only during winter.' Mr. Bullock dates from the London Museum;-a highly interesting establishment, which owes its richness and extension to his personal skill, activity, and zeal. ART. III. An Essay on Genius; or, the Philosophy of Literature. By John Duncan. 8vo. pp. 264. 78. 6d. Boards. Longman and Co. 1814. A N Essay on Genius should either begin or end with a defi nition of the quality under contemplation. If the term be as yet of indistinct and equivocal meaning, let us investigate R 4 the the derivation of the word, and compare the use made of it by various eminent writers and contending authorities. Abstract expressions, which denote not an individual being but a generalized idea, very slowly obtain that precision of outline and closeness of definition, which can alone fit them for the purposes of critical philosophy. They require to be weighed repeatedly in the balance of the synonymist; and it is not usually the first or the second rebuke of the grammarian, which suffices to caution the inattentive writer against impropriety and confusion. The labour of composing a volume is not ill bestowed, if it reduces one such unintelligible or hitherto indefinite word into the class of known quantities. Truth, or science, has no other road for progression. By the present author, an exact definition is neither assumed nor inferred, nor attempted: on the contrary, genius is, in this work, confounded with intellectual ability, or strength of mind; whereas it is only one form of mental excellence. We do not call Hobbes a man of genius, nor Shakspeare a man of intellect, but the reverse; it being usual to confine the attribution of genius to those who excel in point of fancy. Yet, in defiance of general usage, and with an effect fatal to precision, the author of this Essay chooses to employ the denomination genius for mind, or vas, in general. He divides his dissertation on mental excellence into twenty chapters; and, with laudable zeal for the honour of the literary character, he begins by placing the true dignity of man in eminence of mind. The second chapter remarks that one idea is equal to another; and that subjects differ only in complexity. We deny this proposition. Ideas differ in vividness, and are in that respect unequal: the more stimulant ideas being illuminated within the mind to a pitch of splendour bordering on the consciousness of perception. Secondly, ideas differ in extent, and are on that account unequal: the more important ideas overspreading the whole cavern of the memory, and mingling with every object depicted on its walls. Thirdly, ideas differ in complexity, and are in that respect unequal: the pictures within the mind, the hieroglyphic forms with which we think, are not compounded of simple and equal parts associated together, (as the Hartleyans, in defiance of observation, assume,) but are originally copied from sensation in various degrees of ramification, and are progressively simplified by the successive oblivions, or omissions, of the memory. Ideas of the first impression are the most branched out or complex: as they become more abstract, they become simpler, but less definite, and are thus fitted to stand for generalities, instead of individualities. The memory generalizes a recollection by forgetting |