xvi INTEODUCTION 



of an earthquake which got printed among other narratives 

 of the same kind in the Philosophical Transactions, described 

 fossils and corals from Coalbrookdale, and corresponded with 

 Linnaeus. In 1761 he began to publish the British Zoology, 

 which gave what was then considered to be a fair account of 

 most of the groups of British animals, the insects, however, 

 being left out altogether. Many other books followed : Tours 

 in Scotland, A Tour in Wales, A History of Quadrupeds, 

 Arctic Zoology, London, etc. Some of his books went through 

 several editions, and he was one of the most successful writers 

 of the age. Opinions differed as to their value. Percy ran 

 down his descriptions, and declared that " a carrier, who goes 

 along the side of Loch Lomond, would describe it better". 

 Johnson defended Pennant vigorously. " He's a Whig, sir, a 

 sad dog, but he's the best traveller I ever read." A hundred 

 years later one is obliged to admit that Pennant's merits were 

 only moderate. He was not enough of a zoologist to write 

 books on zoology, and the gap left by the death of John 

 Ray was first filled to some extent by George Montagu in 

 zoology, as by Sir J. E. Smith in botany. Some of Pen- 

 nant's books on natural history are readable ; others are not ; 

 both kinds are mainly compilations from Linnaeus, Buffon, 

 Pallas and other writers. His topographical books are the 

 offhand productions of an inquisitive man, who loved riding 

 about the country, and wrote with ease. 



White had no great love for Pennant. He seems in the 

 correspondence to complain of Pennant's stinginess and un- 

 gentlemanly behaviour to his brother John. Bell, in his 

 edition of White's Selborne? says much about Pennant's use 

 of White's information without acknowledgment. Yet in 

 the British Zoology 2 Pennant announces his debt. In the 

 Synopsis, however (1771), and the History of Quadrupeds 

 (1781) the noctule and the harvest-mouse are included with- 

 out mention of Gilbert White. I do not observe that White 

 resented this treatment. Our present usage in the matter of 

 acknowledgment was not then firmly established. Linnaeus 

 is very careless about it, and White himself never mentions 



*Vol. i., p. xli. 



2 8vo ed., 1768 ; see Preface, p. xiii, Appendix, p. 498. 



