140 Scientific Notices. 
to those who did see it, he pronounces it at once “ to be the Maki nain 
of M. F, Cuvier.””—As it happens, he might with about equal justice 
have pronounced it ‘to be an Alligator.’ 
The fact is, as Mr. Vigors and Dr. Horsfield now upon closer inquiry 
conceive, that they were wrong in their original conjecture. At the time 
of publishing their observations, they had no clue to the habitat of the 
animal, and they had no means of examining a peculiar form of South 
America, which had been characterized by M. Cuvier in the “ Régne 
‘* Animal,” under the name of Wocthora, and to which they now have 
reason to suspect their animal belongs. They are indebted to their friend 
Mr. Bennett for turning their attention to this point, and, from his infor- 
mation they are inclined to conclude that the species is one of those 
from Brazil, lately characterized by M. Spix. Such is the course of our 
knowledge on such points. Doubt leads to conjecture; and conjecture 
terminates sometimes in truth, frequently in errour. But even such 
errour is not without its use. In the present instance it has afforded a 
clue to that beautiful affinity which so intimately connects the two families 
before us. The doubt has ascertained the point of contact. The animal 
stands intermediate between the groups. The locality may perhaps 
afford an artificial le by which it may be restricted to either. But in 
the comprehensive view of the philosophick inquirer into nature it will 
equally be a Lemur among the Monkeys, or a Monkey among the 
Lemurs. 
The fourth, and to the high satisfaction of the writers, the last, animal 
described by Mr. Vigors and Dr. Horsfield is aspecies of Squzrrel, which 
they named after the discoverer. This M. Lesson asserts to be the Seiurus 
Prevostii of M. Desmarest. It is true, he admits, that the flanks of 
the latter animal are yellow, while those of the former are white. But 
we all know, as he continues to syllogise, how nearly allied white is to yel- 
low:—therefore the two animals are the same :—Q. E. D.—The writers 
have ever been in the habit of considering that a false or an imperfect 
description of an animal is, in the eye of the naturalist, no description 
at all. If M. Desmarest was wrong in ascribing a character to an 
animal to which it had no claim, his name and description fall to the 
ground, If he was correct in the characters he ascribed to it, then the two 
animals are distinct ;—distinct, at least, until proof establishes the fact that 
