in the '' Dictionnaire des Sciences NaturellesJ^ 119 



Parrots was known to the ancients ? iElian, no slight authority 

 on such a subject, expressly states the contrary : and had the 

 writer in the " Dictionnaire" taken the pains to read the paper 

 which he has undertaken so unequivocally to condemn, he would 

 have found his censures as little founded upon fact, as upon the 

 accurate modes of reasoning. From the following passage of the 

 Greek authour quoted in that paper [p. 64.], it appears that at 

 least three species of Parrots were known in ancient times. — Ey 

 h^ots (/.xv^xvu airracKHs o^vis yivs^ixi. — FENH TPIA ccvruv xxau.^ 



I have not the good fortune of a personal acquaintance with M. 

 Desmarest : I know him only by his writings. But, with that 

 proneness which we all feel to exalt the votaries of the science we 

 ourselves pursue, I have been accustomed to class him in tny 

 imagination among those higher naturalists, whose qualifications 

 make up the deau ideal of a man of science. Familiarized with 

 the writings of our earlier ornithologists, of Ray and Willoughby, 

 of Pennant, White and Montague, and conversant with the modes 

 of thinking and discussing that belong to most of the living 

 naturalists of this country, I had been led into the opinion that 

 it is the characteristick of a man of science to unite to a knowledge 

 of his immediate pursuits, the accomplishments, and the courtesies 

 of a gentleman. I had equally persuaded myself that, amongst 

 these accomplishments, a knowledge of classical literature was at 

 least a valuable embellishment, and an adherence to the rules of 

 fair and legitimate discussion, a qualification that was essential^ 

 How great then was my disappointment, when I perceived the 

 name of M. Desmarest subscribed to an article, where on a clas- 

 sical subject an unpardonable ignorance was betrayed of classical 

 literature, and where at the same time the common rules of 

 justice and courtesy were violated by the indiscriminate abuse of 

 a paper, which appears not merely not to have been studied, but 

 not even to have been read ! 



I shall not however allow my good opinion of M. Desmarest to 

 be so easily overturned. I shall quote his own words in his own 

 vindication ; and I shall appeal to M. Desmarest when speaking 

 the sober language of science, from M. Desmarest when scattering 



* Hist. Animal. Lib. xvi. c. 2. 



