98 APPENDIX, 



vain by a variety of experiments. And even so late as within 

 these two years, 1 he declared likewise in his public lectures, 

 "that the lymphatic system was supposed to take place only 

 in men and viviparous animals, and by analogy in those fishes 

 placed by Linnaeus amongst the mammalia, and how far was 

 their just extent (he said) was not certain, but that he had 

 found them in some amphibious animals, as in the turtle/' 

 These declarations, I observed, were inconsistent with his claim 

 to the discovery. 



Besides using these arguments, I promised the Society I 

 would hereafter produce unquestionable proofs of the invalidity 

 of his claim, having by this time found that the Doctor, fortu- 

 nately for me, had expressly acknowledged in his lectures, that 

 he had sought for them in vain, almost every year since the 

 time that he now pretends to have seen them. 



Dr. Monro being informed of these proceedings, sent me his 

 letter, dated June the 8th, which he has since printed in his 

 < State of Facts/ But that letter appeared so confused, that 

 I knew not what to make of it. Sometimes I thought it was 

 meant to prove that he had discovered those vessels, agreeably 

 to his assertion read before the Royal Society: but this I soon 

 after suspected could not be the case; because, after relating 

 all his facts and experiments, he concludes, not that he had 

 discovered them, but only " that he had seen what he strongly 

 suspected to be lacteals in those animals " (viz. birds. 2 ) And, 

 " that (from preceding experiments) he was persuaded that birds 

 were provided with lacteal vessels, and confirmed in this opinion 

 by having injected them in one of the same oviparous class, the 

 turtle;" 3 or, in other words, Dr. Monro claimed a discovery 

 by telling the Royal Society that he had seen those vessels in 

 birds eight years ago, which he now proves by showing he had 

 only suspicions about them, and an opinion that birds had 

 them because turtles had them. 



At other times I thought that possibly, after finding what 

 his pupils testified, he might now be convinced he had impru- 

 dently claimed those discoveries, and might intend this as a 

 sort of an acknowledgment (though an awkward one) of my 

 being the first who had seen those vessels. But the vindictive 



1 My letter being dated Jan. 10, 1769. * State of Facts, p. 21. * Ibid. p. 23. 



