THE OSPREY. 



59 



minute observations, which shall be briefly 

 noted in their places, against particular names, 

 are added to the sweeping condemnation." 



The main issue thus raised was. is the group 

 of Parrots a genus or an aggregate of many 

 genera constituting an association of higher 

 taxonomic value than a genus? It is to be es- 

 pecially remembered, then, that, at the com- 

 mencement of the second quarter of the century 

 just closed, this was a live question. A g r ood 

 French naturalist, in close accord with the 

 eminent zoologists of his time in Paris, main- 

 tained that all the Parrots were congeneric! 

 He recognized 222 nominal species, many of 

 which, however, are now known tobeconspecific; 

 these he primarily distributed, not under sub- 

 genera, but what he called sections. He recog- 

 nized six of these "sections" — .Ira, Psittaca, 

 Psittacula, Psitlacus, Kakadoe and .!//, roglossum. 

 The numerous species of Psittaca or Perruches 

 (11-100) were ranked under four "divisions": 

 Psittacaia, Sagittifer, "Perruches proprement 

 dits" and" Perruches taticaudes." These, as well 

 as the other "sections," except Ara, were sub- 

 divided according to geographical distribution 

 — whether American. African. Asiatic, Austra- 

 lian, or unknown. The species of Ara were 

 grouped according to color, whether red, blue, 

 or green. 



We need only compare these views with those 

 of Vigors already reproduced to recognize the 

 very decided superiority of the English natural- 

 ist. Far from having gone to an extreme, the 

 latter scarcely approached the stand now taken 

 by naturalists. Salvadori. for example, in 1891, 

 recognized 500 i4'i'ii species which lie grouped 

 under 70 genera and 6 families. Vigors, how- 

 ever, reached nearer to the modern ornithologists 

 than any other of his time, and was the first to 

 recognize that within the group of Parrots there 

 were subdivisions of more than generic value, 

 that is, subfamilies. The extent to which his 

 genera have been adopted by modern ornitholo- 

 gists and especially Salvadori. is indicated in 

 connection with the arrangement by Vigors re- 

 produced above. 



Vigors naturally was conscious of this supe- 

 riority and naturally, too, he was nettled at the 

 assumption of superiority of the French natu- 

 ralist and the dogmatic and by no means gentle 

 judgment passed on the work of himself and his 

 associate. 



Vigors replied to Desmarest in a long article 

 of over thirty pages (Z. J., iii. 91-125i in which 

 he discussed the question of what a genus is. 

 the composite nature of some natural groups, 

 such as the Parrots, Monkeys, etc.. and the prin- 

 ciples which should guide in their subdivision. 



In the Zoological Journal for 1828, Vigors 

 and Horsfield published some "Observations on 

 some of the Mammalia contained in the Museum 

 of the Zoological Society" (iv, 105-1141 in which 

 they treated of several mammals of a doubtful 

 nature, it being uncertain whether they were 

 distinct from previously described forms or not. 

 They gave new names to four species they be- 

 lieved to have been previously confounded with 

 others or entirely new. They were very unfor- 

 tunate in these cases for it is now known that 

 one of the supposed new species was a variant 



of the oldest named species of the g'enus to 

 which it belonged, another [Nasalis recurvus) 

 was based on the young of another well-known 

 type, and the two others had been named some 

 time before. The species have been determined 

 as follows: — 



Simia albimana (p. 107) = Hylobates lar 



Linn, i 

 Xasalis recurvus i p. 110) =■ JVasalis larva/us 



(Wurmb. | yg. 

 Cheirogaleus Commersonii (p. 112) = Nyctipi- 



thecus felinus iSpixi. 

 Sciurus Rafnesii (p. 113) = Sciurus Prevostii 



(Desni. i 



Vigors and Horsfield also erred in refusing to 

 recognize the genus Hylobates and in referring 

 to a Lemuroid genus (Cheirogaleus) a South 

 American Monkey (Nyctipithecus or .Iotas — 

 felinus). They likewise introduced an unneces- 

 sary note reflecting on Lesson. Lesson, soon 

 after, in the llulletin des Sciences Naturelles, 

 noticed the article of Vigors and Horsfield and 

 indicate 1 what were the facts, with respect to 

 three of the species, but failed to recognize what 

 the Cheirogaleus Commersonii was. He nat- 

 urally, in view of the note on himself, was less 

 careful in the selection of words which should 

 not wound than he might have been otherwise. 



Vigors and Horsfield replied to Lesson in a 

 long "Notice respecting some species of Mam- 

 malia referred to" (Zool. Mag., v. 134-141 ) and 

 defended their previous work. While they did 

 not prove that they were right in their determi- 

 nations, they demonstrated that they had some 

 reason for their opinions, and pointed out some 

 logical inconsistencies of Lesson. They further 

 indicated what the Cheirogaleus Commersonii 

 really was, Out were led by this recognition to a 

 false conception of the relations of the Monkeys 

 and tile Lemuroids. They could not. however, 

 contravene the main postulates of Lesson, and 

 undoubtedly were too abusive. 



The fact that such good naturalists as Vigors 

 and Horsfield could overlook the salient differ- 

 ences between gibbons (Hylobates') and the great 

 Apes {Simia). and that they failed at first to re- 

 cognize in their Cheirogaleus an American 

 Monkey and afterwards misunderstood its rela- 

 tionship, conveys a vivid idea of the imperfect 

 state at the time of mammalogy, and especially 

 of a knowledge of the fundamental characters of 

 thi' primate genera. 



Such were the articles that Swainson felt 

 called upon to reprobate. He did so. under the 

 guise of "A Defence of 'certain French Nat- 

 uralists' " in the Magazine of Natural History for 

 March, 1851, (iv, 97-108). The article was" not 

 so much of a "Defence" of the French Nat- 

 uralists as an attack on Vigors. There was no 

 defence of the premises or assumptions of either 

 Desmarest or Lesson, no justification of the 

 arrogant terms in which they had criticised 

 Vigors and Horsfield, and no dissent from the 

 conclusions reached by the English Naturalists. 

 It was rather a lecture on the amenities of criti- 

 cisms as well as the duties of editors. 



(To be Continued.) 



