have been forgotten by these gentlemen, that science is founded upon
facts, and upon a cautious process of inductive and analogical reasoning
drawn from those facts : it has nothing to do with speculative opinion
or with metaphysical reasoning. The full knowledge of the Natural
System, or of the plan which Omnipotence pursued in Creation, none
but a madman or an enthusiast can ever hope to attain. But I have
yet to learn why we are to withhold that title from a system which
endeavours to reconcile all the appearances of Nature, and to explain
some part of her laws. A natural system in Botany is advocated and
adopted as such, without any one venturing to question the correct-
ness of the epithet; but, in Zoology, it seems to be thought presumptuous
to talk of the Natural System ; because, as it is urged, that
system, in all its bearings, can never be understood. As well may we
call the Solar System an artificial arrangement of the heavenly bodies.
As well may we maintain thereare no natural laws in Chemistry, since all
the properties of inorganic matter have not, nor ever will be, discovered.
The structure and economy of an animal are as incontestable matters
of fact as the presence of any substance in the mineral world, and both
are equally legitimate instruments of reasoning. Until, therefore, we
come to the determination of rejecting that which is known, from a
consideration of that which is unknown, I must continue to esteem
the Hone Entomologicte as the first and the most comprehensive
developement of the Natural System that has been given to the
world. The theory which it explains may be in parts detective, and
in others erroneous, but it has been pronounced by a most distinguished
Naturalist, who even suspects its entire accuracy, to be “ the
most consistent of any yet advanced, since it reconciles facts, which,
upon no other plan, can be reconciled*.” Now, unless these facts are
fully and clearly explained by some other theory, and new harmonies
of creation brought to light, all the general reasoning or metaphysical
disputation that can be urged against it has, in my estimation, nothing
to do with the question at issue.
I have stated thus much, not from any desire to uphold such parts
* Kirby, Introd. to Entom., iv., p. 359.
of the Horae Entomologicae as are the result of synthetical investigation,
still less to maintain the theory of quinary divisions, which I now
venture, in part, to dispute, but to express my deep sense of the profound
sagacity of that mind which first demonstrated the existence of
circular affinities, and first drew a just and philosophic distinction between
analogy and affinity. I have done this, because it seems to me
that the reputation of this naturalist, like that of Linmeus, has suffered
more from the zeal of his disciples than from the arguments of
his opponents, and because I must ever feel grateful to one whose
philosophic deductions first drew my attention to these inquiries. As
for the rest, “ we may all possibly be wrong in part, or even in much
of our respective details; but however this may be, it is difficult not
to believe that we are grasping at some great truth, which a short
lapse of time will perhaps develope in all its beauty, and at length
place in the possession of every observer of nature
Convinced that a zoological system which aimed at illustrating the
general laws of creation was that only which deserved to be called
Natural, it was in the year 1824 that I endeavoured to apply the
circular and quinarian theory to a family group in Ornithology j-, determined
on ascertaining how far it would illustrate certain affinities and
analogies, which to me, at least, appeared unquestionable. I soon found,
however, that although this theory would explain much that I desired,
it would not explain all ; and the publication of a quinarian arrangement
of this same family, nearly at the same time, but essentially
different from my own J,, showed me the necessity of looking much
deeper into the subject. Convinced that truth, if it was to be discovered,
would only result from minute and patient analysis, I entirely
abandoned the synthetic method, as the rock upon which others were
splitting; while the mutual dependence of one natural group upon
another, led almost insensibly from the analysis of the Laniaite, to that
of the vast order of I nsessores§, or perching birds. Eight years have
* Macleay, Linn. Trans., xiv., p. 63.
t An Inquiry into-the Natural Affinities of the Laniadae, Zool. Journ., i., p. 289, Oct. 1824.
+ Linn. Trans., xiv., p. 436.
§ I have adopted this name, because, upon the whole, it is the most expressive of anv yet given to