The fragments which remain of Aristotle's History of Animals may, perhaps, be considered as presenting the general views which he had intended to precede his more particular descriptions; but, regarded even in this light, it cannot be denied that they are extremely deficient in method. There is in them no approach to a regular classification, we do not say of animals, but of subjects to be discussed. He is continually making abrupt transitions, seems to lose sight of the object more immediately in view, to indulge in digressions foreign to it, and frequently repeats a circumstance which he had related before. His work resembles the rude notes which an author makes previous to the final arrangement of his book; and such it may possibly have been. Of descriptions, properly so called, there are few,--those of the elephant, the camel, the bonasus, the crocodile, the chameleon, the cuckoo, the cuttlefish, and a few others, being all that we find. It may appear strange, that the statements of naturalists should so frequently prove incorrect. In how many works, even of the present day, are errors to be discovered, which might have been avoided by a proper use of the organs of vision, and a resolution to take nothing on trust! But it is much easier to employ the imperfect remarks of others, to collect from books, compare and arrange, than to seek or make opportunities of observation for one's self; and of so little consequence do some men hold the actual inspection of natural objects, that, without practising it to any extent, they nevertheless arrogate to themselves the title of philosophical inquirers. In fine, the observations of Aristotle, considering the period at which he lived, and the proneness of the human intellect to wander from the true path, are remarkable for the great proportion of truth which they present to us. Whatever may be their actual merits, they are certainly superior to those of any other naturalist whose works have come down to us from the remote ages of classical antiquity; and we may take leave of this distinguished man by observing, in the words of Dr Barclay, that, "notwithstanding his many imperfections, he did much both for anatomy and natural history, and more, perhaps, than any other of the human species, excepting such as a Haller or Linnaeus, could have accomplished in similar circumstances."