Mr. W. S. MacLeay on the Estrus of Mr. B. Clark. 19 
My crime in attempting to make out the ancient Cistrus is no doubt ac- 
cording to this rule very great; but I trust that I shall meet with some 
little mercy, as Mr. Clark himself led the way, by attempting in his 
first paper to identify the modern C&strus with that of the ancients, 
and as I have only followed, at a humble distance, the footsteps of this 
lawgiver. ; 
The argument indeed by which Mr. Clark quenches for ever any 
attempt to identify the animals described by the ancients, namely, that 
it leads to much unsatisfactory discussion, is most conclusive; and I 
really think, that as the identification of the species of modern authors 
likewise leads very often to unsatisfactory discussion, the council of the 
Linnean Society oughttoextend the bright idea which they have adopted,* 
and to prohibit the identification of all species whatsoever. The argu- 
ment holds equally good in both cases. 
~ Inorder to do full justice to what Mr. Clark calls his Reply, it may 
perhaps be necessary to repeat the statement to which he replies. Now 
the object of my unfortunate paper was to shew, first, that the Gistrus of 
the ancients, as described by them, was not a modern (strus; and 
secondly, that “ it is not indeed unlikely that some of the ancients should 
** have seen the perfect insects of the modern (Estrus flying about cattle, 
© and that they should have witnessed the extraordinary effects which 
** they produce, but, however this may be, they certainly appear to 
** have confounded such insects with the more common Tabani, for it is 
** the modern Tabanus, or some genus extremely near to it, that they 
“ haye always described as the Wstrus.” Such are my words. Now 
let us see how they are replied to. 
When I heard that Mr. Clark had read a paper to prove me in the 
wrong, I rather foolishly imagined, that, as the question under discussion 
was the @strus of the ancient Greeks, I should be overwhelmed with a 
host of new passages from ancient authors. But Mr. Clark holds such 
weapons in sovereign contempt, and annihilates my paper with only three 
* We must here observe, that we do not acquiesce in the conclusion 
apparently drawn above, that the editors of a paper “ adopt the ideas” of the 
authour. For our own parts, we consider the authour alone responsible for 
the opinions or expressions contained in the papers which we publish. Ed. 
B2 
