Sid Farther Defence of certain Trench Naturalists, 



zoological labours of this country among the Continental 

 writers." I hold this statement to be unfounded. Let the 

 writer defend it. The words are plain, and cannot be mis- 

 taken. 



Regarding the Hyacinthine Maccaw, I have little to say. 

 It is not usual to call Azara, whose work was published in 

 1809, " a writer of the last century," although he was in 

 Paraguay from 1781 to 1801. When I read that " no author 

 of the present century appears to have observed the Hya- 

 cinthine Maccaw, with the exception of M. Spix," I concluded 

 Mr. Bennett had ascertained that the bird was not mentioned 

 by Azara, and that consequently I was the first ornithologist 

 who had discovered its " true locality." I do not, however, 

 share in Mr. Bennett's " sorrow " that he cannot invest me 

 with this immortal honour. Had I not put some faith in the 

 writer's accuracy, I should not myself have erred. But is Mr. 

 Bennett correct in deciding that Azara's bird and mine are the 

 same ? I suspect not. The synonymes he has now brought 

 forward may be accurate : but 1 have ceased to place any faith 

 in those voluminous compilations, which have so long encum- 

 bered rather than facilitated science; nor do I ever venture 

 to pronounce upon such questions from such guides. Having 

 seen, however, the Paris specimen, I strongly suspect it is 

 quite distinct from mine ; but, from not being in the same 

 museum, it could not be compared with the other. I sus- 

 pect, also, that it is not M. Spix, but his draughtsman, who is 

 in error. I could blame no one, with justice, for not men- 

 tioning my account and discovery of the bird in Brazil, since 

 neither had been published : but it appeared to me somewhat 

 strange, that while Mr. Vigors (or, as it now appears, Mr. 

 Bennett) was investigating this species, altering his opinions 

 upon it, and then endeavouring to show that a traveller of 

 no mean authority, who had seen the bird in its native regions, 

 was in error ; it seemed to me, I repeat, rather strange, that 

 he should never have had the curiosity to enquire about a 

 specimen which he must have repeatedly seen in the Linnean 

 Society's rooms, before he wrote that " no author of the pre- 

 sent century appears to have observed it, with the exception 

 of M. Spix." I certainly conceived that, if the work received 

 the least assistance from Mr. Vigors, it would be in what con- 

 cerned the Parrots. 



I hope that, in defending those scientific friends from whom 

 I have received great and signal assistance, and who are not 

 here to defend themselves, Mr. Bennett will acquit me of all 

 personal hostility towards himself. It will give me most sin- 

 cere pleasure to evince this on any and on every occasion. It 



