the 'Rattlefnahe, and other American Serpents. 199 -, 



From this quotation it appears that I was not the firfl: 

 perfon who encleavoureii to explain the fuppofed fafcinating 

 power fomewhat in the manner I have done. I have not 

 alTerted that I was. But 1 eertaiuly neither did nor could 

 borrow the explanation from Mr. Michaeiis, whofe "valua- 

 ble eflay," as Mr. Bkimenbach calls it, I have never yet 

 feen. .My theory, which every day's inquiry ferves to 

 ftrenothcn, was the refult of a great deal of attention to 

 the i'ubjeiil : and I have enjoyed as many opportunities of. 

 inveftigating the truth as Mr. Michaeiis did. With refpe6t 

 to that ingenious gentleman, I (hould have allowed him more 

 merit had Kic adopted Mr. Cnlden's explanation; and 1 can 

 allow him vcrv little for reje£ting it, merely becaufe, in fome 

 inftances, no neft could be foiuid in the neighbourhood, and 

 becaufe, " though the fnake was at firft at a great diftance 

 from the bird, it nevcrihelel's fell towards it." Itfurelydoes 

 not follow, becaufe no neli could be found, that none exited. 

 The fchoolboy well kni)vvs the difficulty of difeovering the 

 ncfts of many fpecies of birds ; and the naturalift, who ought 

 to be acquainted with the arts employed by ihefe animals to 

 conceal, from man and other enemies, their ncfts, (hould 

 make ftill greater allowance for the difficulty of diicovering 

 thefc nefts. As to Mr, Michaelis's other affertion, that, 

 " though the fnake was at firft at a great diftance from the 

 bird, it neverthelefs fell towards it," I wiii not pofitiveSy 

 deny it,, until I learn whether that gentleman has himfeSf 

 witneded any thinij; of the kind. But, in the moiuiwhile, I 

 muft fay, that I have no reafons to think that I have been 

 precipitate in advancing what I have advanced on this fub- 

 je<ft in my memoir. 



I do not perceive that Mr. Blumenbach has made any 

 other attempt to controvert my theory, except in !o iav as he 

 has mentioned Mr. Michailis's two obfervations juil noticed. 

 On the contrary, in the new edition of his I'vlanual, the pro- 

 feffor has quoted my memoir, and expunged the ftory about 

 the ringing of the ferpent's tail *. Of Mr. Michaelis's eiJay 

 he makes no mention. And here, before 1 adduce any ad- 

 ditional fadts in fupporl of my explanation, i cannot forbear 

 to obferve, that I do not think Mr. Blumenbach has done 

 juftice to this part of my memoir. In particular, the fine 

 faft communicated to me by the late Mr. Uiitenhoafe, of 

 which he has made no mention, is worth a vvhule volume 

 of (peculations on the fubjeft. I doubt not that my learned 

 Giittingen friend had as high an opinion of the fact as I have, 



• Hamlbuch dcr Naturgcfchichtc, p. t^t j Gbttiiigen i7Q7. 



O 4 Before 



