in the " Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles.'" 115 



assimilating them to other equivalent scientifick groups by terms 

 equally scientifick. And, in describing and dwelling upon the 

 species of Palceornis^ Plati/cercus, and Psittacara^ I feel some con- 

 fidence that I may be considered by you, Gentlemen, and those 

 M ho are equally aware of the nature of my pursuits in science, 

 to have had some more laudable object in view than the miserable 

 reputation of conferring a name. 



M. Kuhl concludes this list of the writers on the Psittacidw j, — 

 the list at least of these who are named ; for there are still others 

 alluded to by the critick, with whom we may yet hope to be made 

 acquainted by his means, who " have truly advanced this depart- 

 ment of Ornithology without overloading it with new and useless 

 denominations." In a former number of this Journal* I have 

 expressed my sense of the obligations due to M. Kuhl for his 

 Monograph on this family. By referring to my observations it 

 may be seen that he has divided it into six primary groups, none 

 of which in any respect come in contact with Dr. Ilorsficld's and 

 mine. Ours in fact are subdivisions of two of his sections. By 

 referring to the same observations it may also be seen, that these 

 groups of M. Kuhl are not " tres-bien distingues" according to the 

 usual practice of naturalists; and that, in contradiction again to 

 the assertion of the writer in the " Diciionnairej'' they ere dis- 

 tinguished by names. 



1 fear, Gentlemen, you will consider that more attention has 

 been bestowed upon these trivial points than they merit. I have 

 not however entered upon this defence of Dr. Horsfield and my- 

 self from a conviction of the importance of the attack made on us, 

 but for the purpose of exposing the spirit in which this attack has 

 been made. Would that our views had been more ably canvassed, 

 and by an opponent, and in a mode, more worthy of our reply ! 

 In such a case the higher principles of the science might have 

 been discussed with advantage to both parties, and the truth even- 

 tually have been elicited by the collision of opposite opinions. 

 At present it is our misfortune to have to deal with mere assertion 

 unaccompanied even by an attempt at proof, and unqualified con- 

 demnation without the decency of an argument to support it. 



n2 



