138 Scientific Notices. 
** as important a fact to science, even if these animals should prove to 
‘* be the young and adult of the same species, by demonstrating the change 
** that takes place in the animal at different stages of life, as if these 
“* differences, according to their own supposition, should be found to be 
“* specifick.’” p. 110. Notwithstanding the explicitness with which 
they imagined they had expressed themselves on this point, they find 
their problematical species enrolled by M. Lesson among their other 
** nominal species,’ and ‘ pretended novelties.’? With an originality 
truly edifying when the foregoing passage is taken into consideration, M. 
Lesson suggests as a new and brilliant idea, proper to himself, the doubt, 
whether one species may not be the young of the other /—But it would be 
an act of injustice to this writer to conceal the fact that he has brought 
other weapons to his aid in this ‘* encounter of wits”? besides mere con- 
jecture. M. Lesson, it appears, has added to his other accomplishments a 
proficiency in the art of logick. Such also we may remember was the 
case with Aristotle, the first naturalist in every sense of the word, whose 
works we have on record, In imitation of his great prototype, our modern 
Stagyrite calls the powers of syllogism to his aid. He argues in form that 
** en bonne logique’’ we may as well create species among the lords of the 
creation themselves in consequence of the variation in the longitude of their 
noses, as among the aforesaid monkies. Mr. Vigors and Dr. Horsfield, 
although thus convicted of breaking the head of Aristotle, have yet paid 
some attention to his favourite art. They were aware that it would have 
been as inconsistent with the rules of fair reasoning to institute species 
among monkies from the length of their noses, as among certain animals, 
which for obvious reasons shall at present be nameless, from the length 
of their ears ;—they knew, in fact, that other characters besides these 
evanescent proportions were necessary to discriminate between the qua- 
drumanous as well as the solipede animal. And they dwelt upon such 
characters accordingly. ‘* The claims of our animal to a separate speci- 
“ fick title, rest chiefly npon the nose and facial angle’’—* from the 
*« difference in the shape of the nose, and more particularly from the 
“« difference in the facial angle.””—* With so great a disproportion be- 
** tween the facial angles of both animals,’’ &c.—Other minour points 
of difference are also introduced, although not insisted upon ; but the 
character aboye mentioned is one on which the writers in the Journal, 
