1011 Defence of certain French Naturalists. 



every-day occurrence ; and the pages of the Zoological Journal 

 bear ample testimony to the truth of the assertion. 



It is further insinuated that M. Lesson is among " certain 

 French naturalists " who view with envy, and treat with 

 '* striking injustice," the merits of our countrymen. It would 

 have been as well if the proof had preceded the condemnation. 

 What are the grounds for these assertions ? Is it because 

 M. Lesson maintains that certain animals, described by Mr. 

 Vigors as new species, are in point of fact not so ? Or is it 

 because that gentleman chooses to follow his own system of 

 ornithology, rather than any other ? For ourselves, we see 

 not the slightest show of reason or of proof for the accusation. 

 Does M. Lesson pass over the works of British naturalists ? 

 Quite the reverse. A reference to his two valuable little 

 Manuals will show how invariably he has quoted the authority 

 of Sir Stamford Raffles, thereby doing justice to the labours of 

 that distinguished man. Dr. Horsfield is no less conscientiously 

 cited upon every occasion, and for every new Javanese animal 

 which he has described. While, to complete the catalogue, 

 M. Lesson is the only naturalist who has translated and 

 published the synopsis of that ornithological system which 

 has been proposed by Mr. Vigors, the very writer who now 

 accuses him of " striking injustice to the merits of British 

 naturalists." 



We may now pass to M. Desmarest, a name which stood 

 in the foremost ranks of science at a time when our " British 

 school " of students (or rather of lawgivers) were in their 

 leading-strings. But matured age and acknowledged emi- 

 nence furnish no excuse for duplicity or injustice : let us, then, 

 enquire how these charges are supported. M. Desmarest, in 

 an article on the family of Parrots, prefers the old arrange- 

 ment of Buffon, Le Vaillant, &c., to the new one of his present 

 accuser ; and on account of two or three hasty words, express- 

 ing his dissent from these novel views, he is answered by an 

 article occupying no less than thirty-three closely printed 

 octavo pages. To many of the views and sentiments expressed 

 in this production we cordially subscribe. Yet we cannot bring 

 ourselves to believe that M. Desmarest ever imagined, that, 

 because he rejected and criticised a new arrangement of par- 

 rots, he was thereby proclaiming*, on the part of himself and 



* " In the present instance, however, I consider the attack, which it is 

 my intention to notice, as rather national than personal. We cannot fail 

 to observe, with no common regret, that a disposition to depreciate the 

 zoological labours of this country prevails to a great extent among the Con- 

 tinental writers." The whole of the paragraph is to the same effect. (See 

 Zool. Journ.j vol. iii. p. 92.) 



