Mr. W. S. MacLeay on the @strus of Mr. B. Clark. 23 
As for Vallisneri, he knew about as much of entomology as he did of 
steam-boats; and Reaumur* expresses himself in doubt as to the Greek 
(Estrus. Consequently, the only opinion that remains at once valuable 
and decisive on the subject is that of Mr. Clark. It is, in short, Bracy 
Clark solus, versus Ray, Olivier, Latreille, and Kirby; nay, even versus 
the ancients themselves, if they have the impudence to contradict-him. 
The question indeed is concerning the ’O:spoc of the ancients; but this 
-is of the very slightest consequence, for says this diffident logician, “ if 
*« Aristotle, Alian or Pliny described the insect which they called istrus 
** with spotted wings, or with a trunk or proboscis, they knew nothing 
“* at all about the true Cistrus bovis.’ I beg leave to inform Mr. Clark 
that he has most thoroughly convicted these ancients of ignorance, for 
although they have not audaciously proceeded so far in their guilt as to 
verify quite his worst suspicions, and to describe their (Estrus as having 
spotted wings, these ignorant philosophers, to their shame be it said, nay, 
-even AEschylus himself, although he is one of those poets whom Mr. Clark 
considers as better authority on a scientific question than any philo- 
sopher, have all, as I have shewn, described their Gistrus as having a 
proboscis. What follows then? Why, that although we wish to ascer- 
tain what Aristotle, Elian, Pliny, and Aischylus, considered an (Estrus, 
those ignorant philosophers, and that still more inexcusable poet, knew 
nothing at all about their own insect, the accurate knowledge of which 
is the snug and sole property of Mr. Bracy Clark. His “ practical 
** pursuits’’ and his “ curious discoveries,’’ entitle him, and him alone, 
to decide the question as to the true Gistrus of the ancients. 
Indeed, upon Mr. Clark’s profession depends a great deal of the 
argument; for if, says he, ‘‘ MacLeay or Latreille had been as much among 
** cattle on the heaths, as my pursuits have led me, they would have 
** long since obtained a practical acquaintance with the effects produced 
“ by these insects, and would not have been led to suppose that the 
* Reaumur mentions the subject as a doubtful one, Vol. 1V, p.540. He 
seems to make a distinction between the Qstrus and Asilus of the ancients, 
and merely appropriates the latter name to the G?strus bovis, because Vallisneri 
had done it before him. ‘*M. Vallisneri veut que ce nom soit donné a notre 
“‘mouche. Aussi l’ appellerai-je volontiers en Frangois.” Such are his words. 
