of this Magazine. S27 



turalists is founded, I shall first advert to that which contains 

 my " Reply to some Observations in the Dictionnaire des 

 Sciences Naturelles on the newly characterised Groups of 

 the Psittacidae." 



Now, Sir, after a lapse of four yeai's, and in consequence of 

 the present accusation, I have looked back to that paper, and 

 read it over for the purpose of forming a dispassionate judg- 

 ment on the opinions expressed in it, and the spirit which 

 dictated it. And here I will allow no false modesty on my 

 part to interfere with my general sense of justice, or deter me 

 from declaring that a more temperate reply to an uncalled 

 for attack and an unusual mode of criticism never issued from 

 the pen of a naturalist. There is not a sentiment nor an 

 expression in that paper, which the calm reflection of the 

 present moment would induce me to alter or expunge. The 

 parts which come at all under the description of being con- 

 troversial are purely defensive ; and the whole tenour of the 

 reasoning evidently proves my object to have been the 

 explanation and elucidation of some of the higher truths and 

 principles of science, even more than the justification of my 

 previous opinions. 



But what judgment. Sir, will your readers form of thi& 

 writer's mode of criticism in calling me the " detractor of 

 M. Desmarest," w^hen I acquaint them that, in the very paper 

 of which I have spoken, so far have I been from detracting 

 from the merits of that highly respectable naturalist, every 

 honour is bestowed upon him ? His name is studiously kept 

 apart from all participation in the blame which I meant to 

 ascribe to the real author of the critique that called for my 

 answer. One of the objects of my paper was actually to 

 prove that M. Desmarest did not write that part of the article 

 which reflected on Dr. Horsfield and myself. The only 

 blame in any respect attributable to that veteran in science is 

 his having permitted one of those numerous critics, those 

 hackneyed drudges of the bookseller, who, unfortunately for 

 the cause of science, are to be found in Paris as well as in 

 London, to foist his surreptitious remarks into the paper 

 which bore his valued name. The style, in fact, of this 

 extraneous critique in the Dictiormaire, the very contradic- 

 tions that set it at variance with the rest of the subject, 

 evidently separated that part of the article from the body of 

 the article itself. The superficial slime betrayed the reptile's 

 track. 



The remaining paper, in which, according to Mr. Swainson, 

 I have taken a conspicuous part as a combatant, is an answer 

 to some observations of M. Lesson upon a previous paper of 



Y 4i 



