[110] APPENDIX. 



The Stvainsonian Controversy. — Sir, I am exceedingly averse to mingle 

 in the controversy between Mr. Swainson and Mr. Vigors ; but I owe it to 

 my own character to say, that Mr. Swainson has published extracts from my 

 letters to him, which I expressly told him were private : because, after I 

 had, in the passage published Vol. I V.p. 485., stated to him my difficulty as to 

 whether Mr. MacLeay's system was considered by himself and his disciples 

 a natural or an artificial system (thinking, as I still do, that, in matters of 

 science, such as this, there ought to be no privacy), I received a letter from 



Mr. , saying that his remarks on my objections to the quinary system 



were for my " private and individual consideration." With the next post 

 I accordingly wrote to Mr. Swainson, enjoining him not to publish this 

 opinion of Mr. — — , that he considered the system artificial which I had 

 thus, unconscious of wrong on my part, requested his (Mr. Swainson' s) opi- 

 nion about. But, without further communication on the point, Mr. Swain- 

 son has published this very passage. This explanation will, I hope, save 

 me from being " felled with a 4to volume," as M. Desmarest was afraid of. 

 (Vol. IV. p. 488. note.) With the above reservation, so far as I am personally 

 ccncemed, I care not if he publish all my correspondence about the qui- 

 narians, who, one and all, seem determined to mystify the world as to what 

 their system is ; each and all asserting that nobody, not even themselves in- 

 dividually, understands it. After all, is it worth understanding? I have been 

 abused, indeed, by more than one respectable journal for treating the 

 subject seriously. Controversies of this kind seem to me to do good in 

 the end, though they for the moment foster ill feelings : they certainly (as 

 in the cases in your Magazine) bring the combatants to their true level, 

 and tend to clear up disputed facts. — James Hennie. Lee, Kent, Nov. 3. 

 1831. 



Swainson's Zoological Illustrations. 



Sir, 

 Your readers and yourself, I suspect, are more than tired of the various 

 controversies, and somewhat angry disputations, which have of late occupied 

 no inconsiderable space in the pages of your Magazine. I cannot forbear, 

 however, adding a few words, and they shall be but a few, in answer to 

 Mr. Swainson's reply in your last Number (Vol. IV. p. 554.), on the sub- 

 ject of his Zoological Illustrations. Mr. Swainson observes that " my 

 arguments touching this work are built on a false foundation, and that 

 my inferences, consequently, are unjust." He then proceeds to state his 

 reasons : — First, he says, " the work is not published by subscription ; 

 therefore there can be no subscribers." Now, this is a truism, which, con- 

 sequently, no one will have the hardihood to deny. But I really am sur- 

 prised that Mr. Swainson should catch at such a broken reed, and attempt 

 to rest any part of his defence on so flimsy a foundation : for who does 

 not perceive that I employed the term " subscribers" as synonymous with 

 that of " purchasers ; " a form of expression this, continually in use with 

 periodical authors and editors themselves, in reference to those who buy 

 their works ? And be they subscribers, or be they purchasers, who are im- 

 posed upon, or whatever else they may be, is a matter of little or no mo- 

 ment J since imposition is wrong, and to be deprecated, be it practised upon 

 whom it may. Secondly, Mr. Swainson says, " The prospectus of the new 

 series stated that it would be published similarly to the old series. There 



