198' Reply to Mr. Ogilby' s 



M Coste having on a subsequent visit expressed doubts as 

 to my determination of the two sacs being continued from the 

 umbilical chord of the embryo; I then, as M. Gerbe truly de- 

 scribes, proceeded to dissipate these doubts by laying open 

 the chord and demonstrating the connexions of the two sacs 

 and their vessels. " Je ne duis pas oublier d'avouer que M. 

 R. Owen, d'apres la priere de M. Coste, a fait une incision 

 longitudinale sur le cordon ombilical de maniere a mettre a 

 decouverte les visceres abdominaux, l'ouraque, et la vessie." 

 This, in fact was the only part of the dissection of the ovum 

 in question, which M. Coste witnessed : for, as his artist tru- 

 ly describes, the contents alone of the chorion were placed 

 before him, — that exterior membrane of the ovum having been 

 previously removed ; and the amnios having also been laid o- 

 pen and reflected from the foetus, which was thus immediately 

 brought into view. The next stage of the dissection was that 

 which M. Gerbe describes, and truly attributes to me. But 

 the commission will observe that M. Coste has by no means 

 thought it necessary to avow this fact. The only share which 

 he assigns to me in this matter, is to make me walk out of the 

 laboratory the moment the dissection began, and re-enter at 

 the conclusion of it. 



I have the honour to be, Sir, 



Your very obedient humble Servant, 

 Richard Owen. 

 March 20th 9 1838. 



Art. III. Reply to Mr. Ogilby s " Observations on Rules for No- 

 menclature." By Hugh E. Strickland, Esq. F.G.S. &c. 



Having read Mr. Ogilby' s remarks in the last number of this 

 Magazine, I hope I may be allowed the privilege of a reply. 

 I must first observe, that respecting as I do the talents of Mr. 

 Ogilby, and valuing his friendship, I shall do my utmost to 

 preserve a temperate tone in the discussion ; though some 

 there are, among former correspondents at least of this Maga- 

 zine, who, if they or their writings were lashed with equal 

 severity, would not, I think be equally patient. I cannot, 

 however withold my opinion, that Mr. Ogilby has been too 

 sweeping in his censure of the humble attempts which have 

 been made to introduce something like regularity into the 

 vast chaos of the nomenclature of Natural History. To de- 

 precate all laws, and to expect that the thousands of persons 

 now employed in advancing our knowledge of Zoology, can 



