Defence of certain French Naturalists. 103 



covered. M. Fred. Cuvier publishes this figure and descrip- 

 tion as coming from M. Diard, who is thus, naturally enough, 

 presumed by every one to be its discoverer. M. Desmarest 

 accordingly states this as his belief, referring to the original 

 figure and printed description of M. Diard, in which (as it 

 appears) not one word is said of Major Farquhar, Sir Stam- 

 ford Raffles, or the Barrack pore menagerie. M. Lesson, on 

 the same authority, makes the same statement; both, as we 

 may fairly suppose, naturally presuming that, if M. Diard 

 had not been the discoverer, that gentleman, or M. Fred. 

 Cuvier, would have mentioned who was. Are we to take 

 for granted that MM. Desmarest and Lesson are endowed 

 with the gift of divination, in knowing that a previous de- 

 scription of the animal in question had been laid before the 

 Asiatic Society in India, and was intended " for publication 

 in their Researches ? " Or, supposing that this account was 

 actually published at the time they wrote, are not the chances 

 ten to one, that a bulky and expensive work, printed in 

 India, should be unknown to two naturalists in Paris ? We 

 ourselves, living in England, to this day have never seen Mr. 

 Farquhar's original paper ; and although we have long wished 

 to be informed on the contents of the more recent volumes 

 of the Asiatic Researches, we really do not know where they 

 may be consulted. Is it therefore surprising that MM. Des- 

 marest and Lesson should be equally ignorant with ourselves ? 

 and is it not more reasonable, and more just, to suppose 

 that they erred from this cause, rather than from a desire 

 " wilfully to mislead their readers?'* If blame is to be attri- 

 buted to any party in this business, it surely lies upon those 

 whom the writer exonerates ; namely, M. Diard, and possibly 

 M. Fred. Cuvier : the former in not distinctly stating that 

 Mr. Farquhar, and not himself, discovered the animal ; and 

 the latter in suppressing, if he really knew it, this important 

 fact. Why, however, the two first-named naturalists, and 

 not the two latter, should have been selected on this occasion, 

 is sufficiently clear, when we recollect their former misdeeds. 

 A foreigner, taking up the book in which this statement is 

 sent forth to the world, and seeing it announced as " Published 

 with the sanction of the council, and under the superintend- 

 ence of the secretary and vice-secretary, of the Zoological 

 Society," will naturally suppose that it is a sort of official 

 record of their opinions ; that every thing contained in it has 

 the " sanction " of the council ; and that, as nothing should go 

 forth but what has been maturely weighed, the secretary and 

 the vice-secretary, to " make assurance doubly sure," are 

 then charged with its " superintendence.'* Such an impres- 



H 4 



