Scientific Notices. 139 
foolishly perhaps, imagined that some stress might be laid, as having 
been often introduced in the present family as a sufficient foundation 
even for generick distinction. The words quoted above, although not 
very difficult, it is hoped, to be understood, have thus been translated 
by this faithful chronicler of the labours of his contemporaries. 
*« L’espéce que ces auteurs nomment Wasalis recurvus,—a pour 
“ tout caractere distinctif d’avoir le nez retroussé.’’ The writers, 
although they did not study their logick on the same form with M. Lesson, 
can yet tell him what name in the language of the schools that species 
of sophism bears, which puts false premises into the mouth of an oppo- 
nent, and from such alone deduces its conclusion. They can equally 
suggest the name by which, in the language of honourable men, that mode 
of animadversion is designated, which misquotes and mutilates the words 
of a fellow labourer in science, perverts his meaning, suppresses his object, 
and attempts to produce from such perverted statements an impression to 
his disadvantage. 
The third animal referred to by Mr. Vigors and Dr. Horsfield, and 
asserted by M. Lesson to be a “ pretended novelty,’ affords, in this 
judgment of the critick, a striking instance of that flippancy by which 
writers of a certain class decide upon what they have no means of ascer- 
taining. Those authours had an animal before them which bore a close 
resemblance to that group of the Lemuride which includes the flat 
fronted species allied to Nycticebus, Geoff., but having a lengthened tail 
which the animals of that genus do not possess. It differed also from the 
group in having four incisor teeth below, and nails more allied to those 
of the Monkeys than of the Lemurs. From the strong affinities it 
exhibited, the writers conjectured that it might belong to the genus 
Cheirogaleus of M. Geoffroy, which had been indicated by M. Commer- 
son, but not definitely distinguished either by him or succeeding writers. 
They announced that the animal agreed with the general description of 
M. Geoffroy: but not having had the opportunity of entering into the 
details, they promised a more accurate examination and report upon a 
subject which held out, as they conceived, no little interest. This task 
the modest critick of the “ Bulletin’ has taken out of their hands. 
Without having seen the animal, the only means of coming to a just or 
indeed any conclusion on such points, or conceding the smallest credit 
