he may be deceived as to facts or misled in his conclusions; such unfortunate occurrences may be easily pardoned to an individual whose solitary studies do not always enable him to acquire all the needful concomitant information; particularly since, whenever better informed, or at any future period, that the additional information may reach him, he is able, unless swelled with the pride of error, to retract or correct any of his former erroneous assertions. But the errors of public bodies and societies, when adopted after mature deliberation and apparent scrutiny, are liable to many difficulties, wherefore they ought to be very cautious in affording their assent to any peculiar fact or doubtful consequence: since we find by experience that their pledge carries a higher degree of conviction to the minds of the illiterate and the enlightened, than any individual responsibility or personal assertion: whereupon the belief of erroneous notions and doubtful facts are propagated and increased. Experience proves likewise that these societies have generally a higher degree of pride than any single individual, and every thing that has been assumed or asserted as a doctrine by them, becomes so far incorporated with themselves, that no consideration can induce them to retract it, even if it should prove afterwards to be founded upon error, illusion, or false reasoning. We have even seen whole universities, schools and academies, presuming to foster and teach obsolete doctrines, many years after experience and the unanimous consent of the learned had proved their fallacious nature. These considerations induce us to regret that the Academy to which we are indebted for the volume before us, should have ventured to give its assent and sanction to some conclusions whereof we trust to be able to show the inaccuracy; although we do not despair that it may forbear to assume the usual pride of consolidated bodies, and adopt the more correct doctrine, which leaves every one at liberty to improve one's self, and correct what deserves correction.

We are inclined to feel that confidence, while we observe that this Academy has already shown itself favourable to the improvements introduced in zoology and botany by the French schools. In its zoological papers, which exceed by far any other, the new genera of the French zoologists are adopted, instead of the old generic divisions of Linnæus; and in the botanical papers, an attempt is made to adopt the natural method, instead of the sexual

system. These bold attempts, which are quite a novelty on this side of the Atlantic, are highly commendable, since it is time that we should no longer follow the old inaccurate track of the worshippers of Linnæus, nor borrow every sort of knowledge from that insulated spot to the northwest of Europe, where a jealous rivalry often forbids the majority of writers to adopt any improvements originating beyond the narrow boundaries of their island. How long did they struggle against the Linnæan improvements? and how long will they yet keep blind to the evidence of late improvements, is diffi cult to say; but we trust that the example of their stubbornness will no longer be imitated, now that the Academy of Philadelphia has partly led the way.

But when we commend and urge the necessity of the adoption of such wise improvements, as are founded upon new discoveries and reasonable principles, we do not imply, by any means, that all the Linnæan doctrines should be set aside: nothing is further from our intention; it is merely in such systematical and inaccurate parts as are rendered obsolete, that we deem useless to persist, and particularly in his zoological and sexual system, whose imperfections were incident on the actual state of knowledge at the time they were ushered, and are now become totally inadequate to fulfil the purpose for which they were intended; other superior methods having superseded them, which are more suitable to the actual state of natural knowledge. Thus very few have dared to oppose the rules introduced by Linnæus in his Philosophia Botanica, and Critica Botanica, they were the happy means of reforming the science of botany, and it is upon them that the scientific construction of that science reposes at this time, and will probably for ever: the only changes attempted have been some trifling corrections, modifications and additions; they have been since extended to zoology and other natural sciences with the greatest success. His sexual system has nothing to do with those rules: Linnæus admitted the natural me. thod in zoology; but despaired of the practicability of its application to botany, wherefore he endeavoured to supply it by an artificial system, of which defects he was well aware, and attempted in vain to veil. Now that the national method of Botany is in successful forwardness, it must supersede altogether this uncouth and momentary system; we have no doubt that if Linnaeus had lived to this day, he would have approved of this needful

change, and also of the improvements introduced in zoological classification.

Nobody would dare to propose the reestablishment of the old botanical nomenclature, when the name of a single plant was composed of ten or twenty words or names; nor ought any one to attempt to carry us back to the confusion of generic names, which was dispelled by the Linnæan reform, when a genus had several names, or compound names, or diminutive names, such as, Alsine, Alsinoides, Alsinastrum, Alsinella, Alsinaria, Alsinastroides, Pseudo-Alsine, &c. Yet many botanists of the French school have committed such an error, because they study very little the Linnæan rules, and the Academy of Philadelphia is now beginning to follow the same mistaken path. We even know of a few botanists who do it intentionally, despising so far Linnæus, that they would overthrow altogether his mighty nomenclature, and if they have not dared yet to abolish the Linnæan names, they endeavour, whenever new genera are to be framed, to recall the old obsolete blundering names of former botanists, or to coin similar ones of the same stamp. When reminded of their mistake, they pretend that any name will do, as the old botanists used to say; that we have in the vulgar languages many synonymical, omonymical, derivative and compound names for different things, and that the language of botany and zoology, will not be the worse, for imitating our vulgar languages in that respect. But the absurdity and temerity of this evasive pretext must be evident to every reflecting mind. The language of those sciences, is founded upon sound scientific principles, it has been totally reformed and established by Linnæus, arising with splendour from the greatest confusion; it has its peculiar laws, rules, and grammar; it is common to all the nations of European origin; and, therefore, almost universal: it is intended to distinguish, at first glance, every generic object from every other, providing against the possibility of difficulties and ambiguities: every genus is the type of a peculiar structure and organization, and its name must be deemed typical and radical, &c. &c. We might proceed to state the evident consequences of this state of things; and we might fill a volume to prove at length the correctness of the principles which we advocate; but it will, perhaps, be sufficient to refer any one to the philosophical works of Linnæus, and we shall conclude by observing, that the ultimate consequence of this new confusion will be, that as soon as

a new genus shall be introduced by a bad or doubtful name, another good name will be given to it by those who contend for the purity of generic nomenclature, and sometimes many such names may be proposed by different authors at a distance; whereby such new genera will acquire two names, or perhaps several names, and in the succession of time, when deliberate attention will be paid to the subject, the evidence of correct principles must certainly prevail, and the erroneous names will have a poor chance of success; they will be forgotten, as those of Morison, Plukenet, Ray, Bauhin, &c. are at this time, and their authors will share the fate of those eminent authors, whose labours are of no use to nomenclature, owing to the defects which they fostered.

Nine new genera have been established in this Journal, 3 of which belong to botany, Crypta, Hemianthus and Collinsia; and 6 to zoology, Firoloida, Cerapus, Sesarma, Catostomus, Monolepis and Mammillifera. Many of these bear erroneous denominations.

Crypta of Nuttall. This name is already the root of several botanical genera, and of even the Linnæan class Cryptogamia; it is found in the genera Cryptandra, Cryptocephalus, Cryptophthalmus, Cryptostemon, &c. It is, besides, against the Linnæan rules to frame a generic name from a single adjective, without a modification: it would have been very easy and proper to have lengthened it into Cryptina, or Cryptella, or Cryptaria. We, therefore, propose to substitute the first of these names Cryptina.

Collinsia of Nuttall, is nearly in the same case, since it appears to be only a root or contraction of Collinsonia; it would be more proper to modify it into Collinsiana.

Firoloida of Lesueur, is composed from Firola, with an obsolete and obnoxious termination; it must be changed altogether: we propose to substitute the significative naine of Pyrlymnus, meaning naked nucleus.

Mammillifera of Lesueur, is rather too long; it is too much like Mammillaria in meaning and sense, and is composed of two Latin names united, which are tolerated in the specific nomenclature, but not often in the generic; lastly, it has too much likeness to the classical name of Mammalia to be tolerated. It must then be changed into Actimastus; meaning radiated mammilla.

Cerapus of Say, is a good name, if the bad name of Apus, Latreille, (Phyllopus

Rafinesque,) is not admitted; otherwise both become worse than bad.

Some bad genera of other authors, have been admitted, which it may be well to notice likewise.

Lissa of Leach, is too short, and is contained in Melissa, &c. it must be modified into Lissula.

Lupa of Leach, is too short, and the root of Lupinus; it must be changed into Lupania.

Lymnea of Lamark, root to Limnetis, is too similar to Linnæa, &c.-it would be well to modify it into Lymnella.

Hippa of Fabricius, means a horse! and is partial root of 20 different genera, such as Hippopha, Hippomane, Hippuris, &c. Why not admit and adopt the anterior and better name Emerita of Gronovius?

Caryophyllea of Lamark, is almost identical with Caryophyllus: Rafinesque had changed it into Nerania.

Corticifera is quite a specific name, inadmissible for genera; the name of Phorophlus, which has nearly the same meaning, might be substituted.

We shall proceed to notice the tracts of this Journal, in the order of succession.

1. Contains the descriptions of 6 new species of Firola, with figures, by Mr. Lesueur: from the Mediterranean, where the family they belong to is very common, and many new genera exist. A good anatomical description of the genus is prefixed.

2. Account of the Ovis montana by Mr. Ord. He calls by that name the white wild sheep of the rocky mountains, which has been called Mazama dorsata by Rafinesque, since it belongs to that genus rather than to the Ovis, having solid horns not spiral.

3. Twelve new species of American fresh water shells of the genera Cyclostoma, Succinea, Ancylus, Paludina, Helix, &c. by Mr. Say. This author has begun to elucidate with much ability the subject of American Conchology, and has adopted the improvements of French

authors.

4. Descriptions of eight N. Sp. of North-American insects, of the genera Cicindela, Nemognatha, Zonitis, and Diopsis, by Mr. Say, who shows himself an able entomologist of the modern school.

5. Observations on the genus Eriogonum, by Mr. Nuttall. He gives a sort of monography of it, and adds many pertinent remarks on the natural family of Polygoneous, which, however, awaits yet the reforming hand of an able botanist.

6. Description of the genus Firoloida, by Lesueur, or rather Pyrlymnus, and of

3 species of it, found in the Atlantic. This genus differs from the genus Hypterus of Rafinesque, by its dorsal fin.

7. Description of 3 N. Sp. of the G. Raja from North America. This Linnæan genus forms a natural tribe, containing many different genera: the R. maclura of Lesueur belongs to the genus Uroxys Raf. having neither dorsal nor anal fin: the R. say, having both, belongs to the genus Hypanus Raf. and the R. quadriloba, belongs to the G. Platopte rus Raf. having only a dorsal fin on the

tail.

8. Account of the Hessian fly, Cecidonosia destructor, and its enemy the Ceraphron destructor, by Mr. Say; with a very good scientific description of them, with figures.

9. A N. G. of rustaceous Cerapus tubularis, by Mr. Say; with a figure, very near to the genus Jassa of Leach.

10. Description of the Tantalus mericanus, (found in New-Jersey and Maryland) by Mr. Ord.

11. Description of two new genera Monolepis and Sesarma, and 23 species of North-American Crustacea, whereof 15 are new, by Mr. Say; with many figures. They belong to the genera Cancer, Portunus, Pinnotheres, Ocypede, Libinia, Plagusia, Pagurus, Astacus, &c. Mr. Say has adopted the improvements of Latrielle and Leach, on the genus Cancer of Linnæus, which is now become, by the discoveries of many writers, a class, containing more than 100 genera and 1000 species! His descriptions are very minute, yet sometimes confused and defective in a few points. We advise to compare bis Ocypode reticulatus with the O. pusilla of Rafinesque's account of some N. G. and Sp. of North American Crustacea, in American Monthly Magazine, vol. 2. p. 40. His Astacus affinis with A. limosus Raf. ditto; his Pagurus longicarpus with P. truncatulus Raf. ditto; and his Hippa talpoida to Nectylus rugosus Raf. ditto; as they may happen to be identical or very near related to each other.

12. On five new species of American eels, by Mr. Lesueur; he refers them to the genus Murena of Linnæus and Lacepede; while they belong to the genus Anguilla of Shaw and Rafinesque; the Murena is a different genus from the eels, which name Lecepede has changed, without any reason, into Gymnothorax, a denomination that applies to 60 genera of fishes!

13. On two new species of cod, from lake Erie and the river Connecticut, by

Mr. Lesueur. They have only two dorsal fins, and belong therefore to the genus Merlucius rather than Gadus, which has three dorsal fins.

14. Description of the Cyprinus maxillingua, a N. Sp. by Mr. Lesueur. He intimates that it might form a new genus, which has been established by Rafinesque on this, and another species, by the name of Exoglossum, in the Physical Journal.

15. Description of the Testudo geographica of lake Erie, with a figure, by Mr. Lesueur. It has palmated feet, and is not, therefore, a real Testudo of Dumeril and the moderns.

16. Monography of the Catostomus, a new genus of fish, by Mr. Lesueur. It is a section from the extensive genus Cyprinus, of which Mr. L. describes 18 species. Many other sections must be made in that genus, before it becomes better understood.

17. Description of two N. G. of plants, Crypta and Hemianthus, and two species of Tillea and Limosella, by Mr. Nuttall, with figures of the N G. He calls the Tillea, T. Simplex, which is right. Dr. Ives of New-Haven, had discovered it first (not since, as stated,) and described it under the name of the T. connata of Peru. The Limosella has been considered by both Dr. Ives and Mr. Nuttall, as the L. tenuifolia of Europe; but the figure given by Dr. Ives, in the Transactions of the Physico-Medical Society of New-York, is adequate to prove their error: it is a distinct species, which may be called L. brachistema. We shall now undertake to assert and prove that Mr. Nuttall and the Academy are mistaken, in regard to the natural affinities and arrangement of his two new genera He states that the N. G. Cryptina belongs to the natural family of Portulacea, next to the genera Portulaca and Montia; but the Portulacea differs from Cryptina by having the stamina in heterogonal number, not inserted on the petals nor opposed thereto, and Montia by its peripetal corolla bearing the stamina, characters of the utmost consequence. We deem that the nearest genus to Cryptina, is Claytonia, which only differs by the number of stamina, petals, and cells, which are all characters of a variable and unessential nature. Its natural classification is then in the natural class Eltrogynia, 6th natural order Plyrontia, distinguished by having one ovary, the stamina isogone and opposed to the petals or alternate with the calyx in this order Rhamnus, Berberis, and Vitis, are the types of as many natural families, and next to them CrypVOL. II-No. IV.

35

tina and Claytonia, must form another natural family, to which many other genera will probably become annexed afterwards: it may be called Epionyxia, or the Epiopryxe, and characterised as follows: calyx diphylle; corolla several petals; stamina in equal number and inserted upon them. Several stigmas. Capsul with several cells, valves, and seeds. Leaves simple, opposite, &c.

The N. G. Hemianthus of Nuttall, is rightly approximated to Micranthemum ; but both are very wrongly united to the natural order of Lysimachious, which has a regular corolla, the stamina in equal number and opposed to its divisions. It is by these unhappy attempts and examples that the correct botanists become disgusted with the beautiful natural classification, thinking that those connexions are perfectly illusive, since so many are founded on mistaken references. The genera Hemianthus, Micranthemum, and even the N. G. Collinsia of Mr. Nuttall, or rather Collinsiana, belong all to the second natural class Mesogynia, 5th natural order Chasmunthia or the Personate, and to its first sub-order, Monorimia distinguished by its monolocular fruit. There are at least three distinct natural families included within this sub-order. 1. Aplendinia distinguished by a berry for fruit, and to which belong the genera Besleria, Brunsfelsia, Crescentia, Tanææcium, Mitraria, Tripinnaria, &c. 2. The natural family Clythrelia, formed by Utricularia and Pinguicula, very distinct by its capsul, bilobed calyx, spurred corolla, 2 stamens, &c. And the third will be the natural family Hemilidia, whose characters are, a capsul, calyx with many divisions, corolla without spur, 2 or 4 stamens, &c. It may be subdivided in two sub-families, the first Hemianthia, will contain all the genera with two anthera only, such as Micranthemum, Hemianthus, Stemopus, (Limosella diandra, Wild.) &c. and perhaps Lindernia! while the second Limosellinia, with 4 unequal stamina and 4 fertile anthera, shall contain the genera Browallia, Limosella, Phayllopsis, Conobea, Mecardonia, and Collinsiana, (Collinsia of Nuttall,) all united by the same characters.

18. Descriptions of four new species and two varieties of the G. Hydrargyra, by Mr. Lesueur. A North-American genus of fish.

19. Observations on the geology of the West-India islands, from Barbadoes to Santa Cruz, by Mr. Maclure. These observations are very valuable, although not entirely new: it was well known that all the Carribbean islands were of volcanic