Mr. W. S. MacLeay on the (Estrus of Mr. B. Clark. 19 



My crime in attempting to make out the ancient (Estrus is no doubt ac- 

 cording to this rule very great; but I trust that I shall meet with some 

 little mercy, as Mr. Clark himself led the way, by attempting in his 

 first paper to identify the modern (Estrus with that of the ancients, 

 and as I have only followed, at a humble distance, the footsteps of this 

 lawgiver. 



The argument indeed by which Mr. Clark quenches for ever any 

 attempt to identify the animals described by the ancients, namely, that 

 it leads to much unsatisfactory discussion, is most conclusive ; and I 

 really think, that as the identification of the species of modern authors 

 likewise leads very often to unsatisfactory discussion, the council of the 

 Linnean Society ought to extend the bright idea which they have adopted,* 

 and to prohibit the identification of all species whatsoever. The argu- 

 ment holds equally good in both cases. 



In order to do full justice to what Mr. Clark calls his Reply, it may 

 perhaps be necessary to repeat the statement to which he replies. Now 

 the object of my unfortunate paper was to shew, first, that the (Estrus of 

 the ancients, as described by them, was not a modern (Estrus; and 

 secondly, that " it is not indeed unlikely that some of the ancients should 

 " have seen the perfect insects of the modern (Estrus flying about cattle, 

 " and that they should have witnessed the extraordinary eflfects which 

 " they produce, but, however this may be, they certainly appear to 

 " have confounded such insects vnth. the more conmion Tabani, for it is 

 " the modern Tabanus, or some genus extremely near to it, that they 

 " have always described as the (Estrus." Such are my words. Now 

 let us see how they are replied to. 



When I heard that Mr. Clark had read a paper to prove me in the 

 wrong, I rather foolishly imagined, that, as the question under discussion 

 was the (Estrus of the ancient Greeks, I should be overwhelmed with a 

 host of new passages from ancient authors. But Mr. Clark holds such 

 weapons in sovereign contempt, and annihilates my paper with only three 



* We must here observe, that we do not acquiesce in the conclusion 

 apparently drawn above, that the editors of a paper " adopt the ideas" of the 

 authour. For our own parts, we consider the authour alone responsible for 

 the opinions or expressions contained in the papers which we publish. E<L 



b2 



