Review. 167 



" As there is no science which is more disgraced by 

 what are called facts than natural history; and as it 

 should be the object of every real philosopher, to dimi- 

 nish, to the utmost of his power, the quantity of error, 

 and to prevent the accumulation and extension of idle 

 tales ; so it is to be wished that every member, or per- 

 son, who may transmit to us notices concerning our 

 animals, our vegetables, and minerals, or any of the 

 other objects of the institution, would always be care- 

 ful to distinguish between what is certain or well ascer- 

 tained, and what is probable or conjectural. I say no- 

 thing of the necessity of a solemn and religious adher- 

 ence to truth. I say nothing of that playfulness with 

 science (if I may so express myself), which disgraced 

 the character of one of the Presidents* of the Royal So- 

 ciety of London ; and has disgraced the character of 

 other cultivators of natural history. But I must not 

 omit to say a few words on the subject of credulity. 



V Credulity is one of the most injurious features in 

 the character of the naturalist, as well as of the histo- 

 rian. Its influence, in one individual, is often felt and 

 propagated through many ages. Unfortunately, too, 

 it has been the vice of naturalists, or those who have 

 touched on questions relative to natural history, in all 

 ages. It was his credulity, more than any thing else, 

 which soiled the immortal work of Pliny on Natural- 

 History: a work, though often erroneous, and deform- 

 ed by anile stories, above all praise ; a work upon which, 



«* Martin Folkes, Esq.— See Mr. Pennant's Outlines of the 

 Globe, vol. i, p. 2.17. 



