Alcide d'Orhigny. 21 



was at work upon the group, he had only attempted to "fill a gap," 

 which had always been an obstacle to systematic work on the 

 Cephalopoda.^ His conclusions had been erroneous, as he himself 

 recognizes. The enthusiastic labours of d'Orbigny seemed to him 

 to afford an opportunity to correct and explain whilst minimising 

 his errors, and accordingly we learn from d'Orbigny that " M. de 

 Ferussac in order that he might have an opportunity of revising 

 his own work earnestly begged me to allow him to present my 

 work to the Academie des Sciences, and he preceded it by a 

 critical Introduction on the methods of classification which had 

 been established before me, an Introduction in which he entirely 

 accepted my views." ^ It may be observed that at this time 

 (1839) d'Orbigny was a gooil deal annoyed with de Ferussac 

 (see post, p. 42). Labonnefon observes that " the high opinion 

 that de Ferussac had formed of Alcide d'Orbigny caused him to 

 invite him to collaborate in various works which he had in view, 

 a collaboration which was most useful by reason of the observa- 

 tions, and perhaps more so by reason of the drawings, which had 

 been made by the young naturalist " ; ^ and Latreille remarks that 

 " Baron de Ferussac had called d'Orbigny to him, in order that he 

 might be helped by him (d'Orbigny) in his works, to facilitate the 

 publication of those which were the special domain of our young 

 naturalist and thus to contribute to his advancement." * He tells 

 us himself,^ " M. de Ferussac caused me to come to Paris at the 

 commencement of 1824. . . . Being kindly received by the 

 scientists of our capital I was enabled to follow my favourite 

 pursuits in an especial manner, and to study under their dii'ection 

 a science which became ever more and more dear to me." We 

 learn from de Ferussac that within seven months after his arrival 

 he had completed the " Tableau Methodique," and finished the 

 plates to the point at which they are practically left at the present 

 day.® Latreille considered that de Ferussac had taken an unfair 

 advantage of the opportunity thus afforded to him to criticize his 

 opponents and to make a stalking-hoise of young d'Orbigny, and 

 he devotes several pages of his Eeport (pp. 9-13) to emphasizing 

 this opinion, pages for which he takes occasion to remark he is 

 solely responsible, exonerating his fellow-Commissioner, G-eoffroy- 

 St. Hilaire, who might have appended a " minority report." 

 Latreille remarks that " M. de Ferussac, in giving you his historical 

 summary, would appear to have sought to place himself in the 



1 I., p. 104. = VII., p. xxii. 



•* XXII., p. 3. ^ Latreille, "Rapport," p. 5. 



^ "Voyage dans I'Anierique Meridiouale," i. (1834), p. 3. See also his Intro- 

 duction to de Ferussac' s " C^phalopodes Acetabuliferes '' already quoted (see note 1, 

 p. 42). 



" He says, " hardly seven months have passed since his arrival in Paris, and 

 M. d'Orbigny has placed himself in a position to publish his Prodrome, and he has 

 finished nearly half the plates for his great work." (I., p. 119.) These are the 

 seventy odd finished " Planches " referred to infra. 



