106 Defence of certain French Naturalists > 



We see no reason for this sweeping accusation, whether 

 applied to the French nation generally, or to those individuals 

 whom we have defended. On the contrary, we have good 

 grounds for forming a diametrically opposite opinion. Not 

 being a member, we were prohibited from making any effectual 

 use of the Zoological Society's Museum while engaged on 

 the ornithological portion of a national work, Dr. Richard- 

 son's Northern Zoology. We therefore went to Paris. The 

 free and unrestrained permission we there sought, and which 

 was absolutely necessary to forward the peculiar objects of 

 our research, was instantaneously and courteously granted. 

 We remained six weeks, daily examining and describing the 

 scientific treasures of the French Museum ; assisted in all our 

 wants and wishes by M. .Lesson *, and by every other dis- 

 tinguished naturalist whom we met. Does such conduct, to a 

 stranger and a foreigner, savour of the accusations so repeat- 

 edly insinuated to their disadvantage by Mr. Vigors ? or does 

 it not rather evince how much the Institution, of which he is 

 the secretary and the chief adviser is behind all others, whe- 

 ther of France or of England, in the march of liberality ? 

 If " jealousy " exists, on which side of the channel is it most 

 conspicuous ? 



We wish we could defend all the naturalists of France 

 against the charges of injustice and irritation, with as much 

 ease as we have acquitted MM. Desmarest and Lesson. But 

 we must be impartial in this matter. 



In the year 1828 we proposed Achatinella as the name of 

 a new genus of land shells from the South Seas, not being 

 aware that it formed one of the sections of the French genus 

 Helicteres. This is considered a sufficient reason by M. le 

 Baron de Ferussac for devoting nearly two entire- *pages to 

 an attack, infinitely more severe and pointed than the occa- 

 sion called for, upon our copying (" rCest que la copie, sons 

 un autre nom^^) this genus from the above, for the sake of 

 giving it a new name; although it is very truly said, a few 

 lines after, that " ikf. Swainson par ait ignorer notre travail 

 sur ce groupe.'' How any thing can be copied, which has not 

 been seen, we are somewhat perplexed to make out. But we 

 have no intention of writing a " Reply" to this article. We 

 shall simply assure the writer, that, when he said we were 

 ignorant of his *' travail sur ce group f ," he was perfectly 



* We had not the good fortune to meet M. Desmarest, who was absent 

 in the country, as our friend M. Lesson informed us, during our stay in 

 Paris. 



f M. Ferussac's great work on the land shells alone, not yet finished, 

 already costs between 40/. and 50/. ; is it surprising that we cannot enrich 

 our library with such a costly publication ? 



