Mr. Swainson and his Reviewers. 499 



suppressing a part of Mr. Swainson's vindicatory remarks, by placing be- 

 fore our readers the whole of that gentleman's Reply to his reviewers, yet, 

 as a portion of the communication with which he has favoured us, related 

 exclusively to an article in a contemporary journal, we trust that our mo- 

 tives for declining to give thus much of it insertion, will be so far appreci- 

 ated as to shield us from the suspicion of partiality or injustice. It would 

 doubtless have suited Mr. Swainson's convenience to kill as many birds as 

 possible with one stone, but we think he must, upon consideration, be sen- 

 sible that to have made the pages of the ' Magazine of Natural History ' a 

 vehicle for giving publicity to any thing in the shape of censure upon the 

 conductors of another Journal, unless that censure were to assume the form 

 of an editorial article, would on our part have involved, not only a breach 

 of courtesy, but an apparent violation of that good feeling which we trust 

 exists between the two periodicals in question. 



As a general principle we think every one must admit the inexpediency 

 of publishing the replies which authors may think fit to make to the criti- 

 cisms of reviewers ; for if this course were to be frequently followed, the 

 public would be annoyed with endless controversies, in the place of obtain- 

 ing that literary information which it is the object of reviewers to supply. 

 Upon the present occasion however we have departed from this rule, and if 

 Mr. Swainson thinks he has been hardly dealt with, so far as the publica- 

 tion of his reply to our critique, (if it have been unjust,) can be any repara- 

 tion, we are happy to afford it him. 



From the tenour of Mr. Swainson's remarks it is plain that he does not 

 identify us with the review of his volume upon Muscicapidce, and in this 

 instance, contrary to our usual custom, the criticisms were not those of our 

 own pen. We are fully conscious, however, that the editor of a journal is 

 the ostensible author of eveiy review which may appear in the work under 

 his superintendance, and, as such, answerable for the justness of everything 

 in the shape of editorial criticism which may there be put forth. 



The remarks on the • Birds of Western Africa,' in common with most of 

 the critical notices which we have been able to give of works sent to us for 

 review, were by the editor ; and in the case of the 'Muscicapidce,' we availed 

 ourselves of the scientific knowledge and literary assistance of a friend, sole- 

 ly that this volume might not, in common with many others of the ' Natu- 

 ralist's Library,' lie unnoticed on our table, until a spare hour should bring 

 us leisure to peruse it. In saying this we do not in the least wish to shift 

 the responsibility from our own shoulders to those of the reviewer ; but in 

 publishing Mr. Swainson's Reply, we had the choice of only two courses to 

 follow, — either to explain the position in which we stand as to the review 

 in question, or to insert his rejoinder without note or comment. 



Having said thus much for ourselves, we quote our reviewer for "scienti- 

 fic information." 



" Mr. Swainson wishes to be informed what we know of 

 the white-headed tody, and the Muscicapa leucocilla, more 

 than what we have gathered from vol. ii. p. 90 of his ' Birds.' 

 Now the white-headed tody has been long ago described by 

 Latham and the " old writers," as Mr. Swainson admits, and 

 it is therefore unnecessary to consult the * Classification of 

 Birds ' with respect to this species. As to the Muscicapa 

 leucocilla of Hahn, we have no hesitation in saying that we 

 did acquire the name from Mr. Swainson's very useful volume. 



