ly to thwart the progress of science in this country. The Handbuch der Naturgeschichte of Blumenbach is an excellent book; but a knowledge of the German language is in Britain confined to a very few, and no translation of that, or of any of the other German manuals of natural history, has hitherto been executed.

tion of the "Elements of Natural History," as a general work, exceedingly desirable-while the many interesting papers which had been published in the transactions of the Linnæan and Wernerian Societies, admitted of many important alterations and improvements in that work as a Fauna

Britannica.

of the different species, and such as are natives of Britain were particularly enumerated and described; by which means the work, besides being an introduction to systematic zoology, served, at the same time, in a great measure, as a Fauna Britannica. In 1802, a second volume made its appearance, comprising Entomology, Helmintho logy, and Testaceology, which, in conjunction with the former volume, containing the mammiferous animals and birds, and the Linnæan amphibia and fishes completed the zoological depart

ment.

This production was executed with skill and accuracy, and the introductory chapters contained a short and useful exposition of the anatomy and physiology of the different classes.

The great attention, however, which the study of natural history has of late years excited in every country of Europe, has of course effected consider able changes in the science. Certain opinions, which at one period were deemed incontrovertible, have been proved, by the sure tests of observation and experience, to be unfounded-and others, which at the same period were looked upon as the wildest chimeras of the imagination, have been shewn to have their foundation in nature and in truth.

It results, as a consequence of this progressive state of the science, that a systematic work, however meritorious at the time of its publication, must, after the lapse of a certain number of years, contain much that is obsolete and inconsistent with what is known to be really true.

The improvements in the principles of arrangement, and the additions which have been made to zoology in recent times, rendered a corrected edi

from the zeal and diligence which he had manifested in the compilation of the former one, that he would have introduced into this, such of the recent discoveries as clearly illustrated the progress of zoological science,-or at least, that he would have removed the objection which had been made to the original work, as containing many species, which the most incontestible evidence had since been adduced to prove were not really distinct from some others from which they had been separated.

On a careful perusal, however, of the second edition, we are sorry to find that this has not always been done. With regard to the general principles of arrangement, Mr Stewart has judiciously adopted the leading features in the classification of Blumenbach; the generic characters are also correct, and he has wisely avoided the injurious and infinite divisions of the French writers; but many species are again given as distinct, which, it is now generally admitted, should be referred as synonyms to other species; and several important discoveries in the zoology of Great Britain, particularly in the ornithological department, have been entirely overlooked and omitted. This is the greater pity, as Mr Stewart's book is still the only one of the kind in this country to which the young student can refer; and from the author's well-known talents and acquirements, much confidence is placed in it. We are moreover informed, that it is used as a text-book by the stu dents who attend the lectures of the Professor of Natural History in this university; and although the attainments in every branch of natural history, of the accomplished Mineralogist who now fills the chair, enable him to

For the present, however, we must confine our remarks to a single department; and as ornithology is one of the most interesting and popular branches of British zoology, we shall rest satisfied with pointing out a few of the discoveries which have either been effected, or rendered more clear and determinate in that science, since the publication of the first edition of Mr Stewart's work in 1801 and 1802. In doing this, we shall follow the order of arrangement adopted by Mr Stewart himself, and shall chiefly particularize those species, concerning which any confusion exists in the work under review, which are at the same time native to Britain.

Genus Vultur.-It was alleged by the early voyagers, that the condor measured 18 feet from tip to tip of the wings; and this extreme extent is given by Mr Stewart. Its size, however, has no doubt been much exaggerated. The first specimen ever brought to Europe was, the female bird deposited in the Leverian Museum by Captain Middleton; and within a short period, a male bird was procured and placed in the same collection. The latter was very large; and when recently killed, the wings are said to have extended 12 feet from tip to tip. It was indeed alleged by some to have measured 14 feet in extent, but this was generally considered as a mistake. In the 18th volume of the Philosophical Transactions, mention is made of a bird, probably of the same species, native of Chili, which is said to have measured 16 feet from tip to tip of the wings. Naturalists, how ever, cannot be too guarded in admitting the accounts of mariners, which experience has shewn are frequently much exaggerated. Unaccustomed objects beheld under all the fascina

tions of a tropical climate, and procured, in the course of some wild and rapid excursion through the most sublime region of the world, even where there is no intention to deceive, produce an effect upon the mind of the beholder very different from that which would result from a calm and unimpassioned contemplation. We have conversed with men who had seen alligators 60 feet long, and to whom the narratives of Marco Paulo, concerning the famous birds in the island of Madagascar, which were in the habit of flying into the air with elephants in their claws, that they might dash them to pieces on the rocks below, did not appear by any means so improbable as to be deemed entirely fabulous.

With regard to the bird in question, however, we have pretty positive proof in the writings of Humboldt, that its earlier histories by D'Acosta, Garcilasso, and others, were much exaggerated. That naturalist admits that they may occasionally attain the great size of 11 or 12 feet from tip to tip of the extended wings; but such as he himself had an opportunity of examining never exceeded 3 feet 3 inches in length, with a breadth, from tip to tip of the wings, of 8 feet 9 inches.

Prior to the time of Humboldt, one of the largest condors, of which the measurements were taken from the bird in a recent state, was that shot by Feuillée, in the valley of Ilo in Peru. The wings, when expanded, measured exactly 11 feet 4 inches, from tip to tip; and the French foot being equal to 13 of our inches, the breadth of this bird must have been about 12 feet 3 inches. This is probably the largest bird of which the measurements are recorded, as taken by a person accustomed to scientific accuracy; and as the proportions of the specimen formerly in the Leverian Museum, but now unfortunately removed to the Cabinet of Vienna, in consequence of the dispersion of that ill-fated collection, seem to have been doubted by Dr Shaw, it may be considered as the largest individual on the description of which we can rely, and probably approaches the utmost limits which can reasonably be assigned to the growth of this formidable species.

Various opinions have been formed regarding the geographical distribution

of this bird. It has generally been considered as characteristic of the wild and mountainous districts of South America. Humboldt says it inhabits the lofty rocks of the Andes, immediately below the boundaries of perpetual snow.

Buffon, whose ideas were frequently more fanciful than correct, deemed it scarcely possible that a bird, claiming the highest rank among the feathered creation, should be confined to a single region of the earth. In the "Histoire Naturelle des Oiseaux," he enters into a long detail upon the subject, the object of which is to prove, that the birds of prey mentioned by Gesner as inhabiting the neighbourhood of Tarnasser in the East Indies, of the bills of which the hilts of swords were fabricated-the vultures of Sene gal which carry off children—and the Lammer-geyer of Switzerland, are all referable to a species synonimous with the condor of Peru. To that species he also refers the great bird mentioned in the South Sea voyages-the famous Roc of the eastern writersand the large bird of prey found in Russian Lapland, as described both by Regnard and La Martiniere, and of the nest of which a drawing is given by Olaus Magnus.

In this view, therefore, the condor, so far from being confined to the still regions of the Andes, has a geographical distribution more general and extensive than any other known species, being found in almost every region of the old world, from the most northern parts of Scandinavia, across the burning sands of Africa, to the island of Madagascar; and from the glaciers of the Rhone and the Arveron to the glowing banks of the Indus; and from thence to the mountains of Chili and Peru. We need scarcely add, that the opinion of the eloquent Frenchman is without any foundation in truth. The condor of America is the same as the Vultur gryphus of Linnæus,-the Lammer-geyer of the German writers is the V. barbatus of the Swedish naturalist,―and the Senegal vulture is a species perfectly distinct from either. As these three are the only species out of those he has enumerated, of the existence of which we have any rational proof, it is unnecessary to say any thing of the others, as that would only be combating the phantoms of an enthusiastic imagination.

The opinion of Buffon, originally adopted under some false impression, that the Lammer-geyer of the Alps should be considered synonimous with the condor of Peru, was no doubt powerfully strengthened by the sentiments of MM. Valmont de Bomare and De Salerne. As this point is of some importance in determining the specific relations of one of the most singular birds of the old world, our readers will pardon us for entering into a very brief examination of the matter.

M. V. de Bomare's chief reason for considering these birds as synonimous is, that they have both a breadth of 14 feet. We have already shewn, that the claims of the Peruvian bird to such a measurement are at the best of a doubtful kind. In regard to the Lammer-geyer, however, we are fortunately enabled to speak with greater certainty. It has, assuredly, sadly degenerated from the time of M. de Bomare, as its usual breadth is now only from 74 feet to 8 feet. It no doubt still makes "6 une guerre cruelle aux chèvres, aux brebis, aux chamois, aux lievres, et aux marmottes;" but these unamiable traits of character are likewise daily exhibited in equal perfection by the ravenous eagle.

It

But M. de Salerne relates a fact (using the word in its ordinary acceptation,) which is considered as sufficiently decisive on the subject. appears, that in the year 1719, M. Deradin, who was father-in-law to M. du Lac, shot, at his Chateau of Mylourdin, a strange bird, which measured 18 feet (French feet) from tip to tip of the wings. This bird, it seems, was-What? carefully described upon the spot, and a coloured drawing sent to the Royal Academy? No-This bird was eaten by the family at Mylourdin aforesaid, as well as by the natives of the Chateau Neufsur-loire; it was found to be somewhat tough, and its flesh had rather a marshy smell. But, adds M. de Salerne, I saw and examined one of the smallest feathers of the wing, and it was larger than the largest feather of a swan; and therefore, cet oiseau singulier sembleroit être le contur ou condor." This may be a most legitimate conclusion; but we are still of opinion, that though an entire feather, after having been both seen and ex

amined, should be found to exceed the largest feather of the largest swan in the country, that circumstance was not sufficient to convert a Lammergeyer into a 'condor 18 feet in breadth. It is indeed surprising, that Buffon should have placed confidence in such a vague and contradictory story. Is it probable, that a bird of such extraordinary dimensions would have excited no other feeling than the culinary interest recorded by M. de Salerne ? or that out of its 18 feet of plumage, no vestige should remain to be "seen and examined," except one of the least of its quill feathers. We scarcely remember a finer example of reasoning ex pede Herculem than this affords and we doubt whether Cuvier himself, in the very spring-tide of generalization, would not have been somewhat puzzled by it. The thing carries contradiction in its very front; but it was a fact which chimed harmoniously with the wild theory of the Count, and as such it was recorded.

;

Of this genus there is no British species. The Falco albicilla, or whitetailed eagle, was placed by Linnæus with the vultures, owing to a fancied agreement in the form of the bill; but that arrangement was injudicious, and has not been adopted.

The genus which next demands our attention, is that termed Falco, which includes the tribes of eagles, falcons, hawks, buzzards, and kites.

Since the publication of Mr Stewart's work, the Regne Animal" of Cuvier has reached this country. It appears, from the observations of that naturalist, that the F. albicilla and F. ossifragus are specifically the same, the latter being in the plumage of immaturity. He likewise observes, that the F. albicaudus, or lesser white-tailed eagle, is the male of the F. Albicilla; so that these three species should henceforth be considered as synonimous. These facts are said to have been ascertained more than once in the Menagerie of the Parisian Museum.

The F. gentilis still finds a place in Mr Stewart's Elements. There is no doubt, however, that that species, as generally described, is merely the young of the goshawk. We were surprised to find that Mr S. has continued the F. cyaneus and F. pygargus as distinct species, notwithstanding the positive proof which Montagu had afforded to the contrary. That excel

lent ornithologist, by rearing the young birds taken from the same nest, ascertained that the F. cyaneus, or henharrier, and the F. pygargus, or ringtail, were male and female of the same species. Both sexes, in a state of immaturity, bear the plumage of the female.

The merlin, Mr S. remarks, does not breed in England, but migrates, and returns again in October. We are able to state, however, that its nest has been frequently taken in the north of England. They usually build on the ground, or in a low furze bush. We have observed the merlin in Scotland during the summer season, and presume it breeds in this country also.

In the genus Strix, among other species, Mr S. enumerates the S. ulula, S. stridula, and S. aluco. The early synonyms of these species are very obscure, and great uncertainty prevails regarding their history in all ornithological works. We are of opi nion, that the two former should be considered as the Brown and Tawny Owls of English naturalists; and as we have taken these from the same nest, no doubt can be entertained of their being the same species. Indeed a similar fact was recorded by Montagu many years ago. The plumage in the English species is brown, but in the former there is a gray, and in the latter, a ferruginous tinge. They are not, however, as Shaw and others have supposed, to be considered as male and female, as the one is merely an accidental variety of the other; and the ferruginous or tawny owl being the more common, should be looked upon as the standard species. Now, as the Linnæan species agree with those just mentioned, and bear a similar relation to each other, it is probable that they should be considered as also synonimous.

We are likewise of opinion, that the S. aluco has no just claim to specific distinction. In common with the preceding species, it is referable to the S. stridula, or tawny owl. There are many contradictory references concerning it, which seem chiefly to result from the general supposition, that the last mentioned species is distinct from the brown owl of Pennant. The Aluco owl, as originally described, seems to bear a great resemblance to the graycoloured variety of the common species; and when we observe that it is also found