102 Defence of certain French Naturalists. 



" The knowledge of this animal in France, says M. Desman 

 rest, in his Mammalogie, carefully shielding himself under an 

 equivocal form of exjn'ession, is due to M. Diard. But M. Les- 

 son goes further ; and echoing, as usual, the dicta of his pre- 

 decessor, mth a slight addition of his own, speaks of the Indian 

 Tapir as a species ' discovered by M. Diard/ Again, in the 

 Diction?iaire des Sciences Naturelles, M. Desmarest, /or^^//wZ 

 of his former caution, heightens the farce still more, by assert- 

 ing that its discovery in the forests of Sumatra and the 

 Peninsula of Malacca is due to MM. Duvaucel and Diard. 

 In none of these works is the least indication given that the 

 animal in question had previously been ever seen by an Eng- 

 lishman, much less is the fact suffered to transpire, that long 

 before M. Diard had " discovered " it, not in the forests of 

 Sumatra, or the Malayan Peninsula, but in the menagerie 

 of the Govern or- general of British India at Barrackpore, a 

 full description, together with a figure of the animal, and of 

 its skull, had been laid before the Asiatic Society by Major 

 Farquhar, for publication in their Researches. This latter 

 circumstance, it is true, is not mentioned hy M. Fred. Cuvier 

 when he figured the Tapir, from M. Diard's drawing, or by 

 that gentleman himself, in the published part of his letter ; but 

 there seems to have been no intention on their parts wilfully 

 to mislead their readers." 



Now the justice or the injustice of this invective against 

 MM. Desmarest and Lesson rests entirely upon one simple 

 fact, which their accuser completely passes over. Is there 

 either proof, or presumptive evidence, that these natural- 

 ists, at the time they attributed the discovery in question to 

 M. Diard, knew that such was not the fact ; that Major 

 Farquhar in reality was its discoverer ; and that a description 

 by him had been laid before the Asiatic Society? If they 

 knew all this, they are convicted of falsehood, and their names 

 deserve to be thus held up to obloquy ; but if, on the con- 

 trary, they did not, we are at a loss for terms sufficiently mea- 

 sured to designate such an act of injustice. If their accuser 

 could have substantiated this previous knowledge, it is natural 

 to suppose he would have done so ; since that would have 

 given ten-fold strength to the accusation. But this is not 

 done ; nor is there the least internal evidence that the expres- 

 sions of MM. Desmarest and Lesson were made with an 

 intention " wilfully to mislead." The real facts of the case, 

 according to the statement of Mr. Vigors himself, appear to 

 be these : — M. Diard, during his researches in Malacca and 

 Sumatra, sends to M. Fred. Cuvier a drawing and description 

 of a new animal, without mentioning by whom it was first dis- 



