68 COMMENT. 



In refering to M. Edwards' report he says : 

 "After, reading it, who would not be led to be- 

 live, that the processes of artificial fecundation 

 were not perfectly known, at least by Savants ? 

 But notwithstanding this, M. de Quatrefages saya 

 not a word of them in the memoir he presen- 

 ted to . the Institute in 1848 ; while on the other 

 hand, when the letter which I addressed to that 

 learned body on the 2nd March, 1849, was read 

 by M. riourens, it was received according to the 

 testimony of Abbe Moigno, who was present at 

 the meeting, with the most unequivocal demon- 

 strations of surprise and satisfaction on the part 

 of all the members of the Academy of Sciences. 

 M. Milne-EdAvards was then immediately appoin- 

 ted as one of the commission to examine my 

 report in conjunction with Messrs. Dumeril and 

 Valenciennes. How does it happen that he did 

 not then inform his colleagues that the matter 

 had been long before known? How was it that 

 he did not then and there announce that not 

 only the processes of artificial fecundation had 

 been very many years before described by Gold- 

 stein, by Duhamel du Monceau, and by Jacobi, but 

 that they had been successfully practiced in 

 Scotland? Why did he wait before making any 

 such statements, until he was ofl&cially charged 

 by the Minister of Agriculture and Commerce, 



