Scientific Notices. 139 



foolishly perhaps, imagined that some stress might be laid, as having 

 been often introduced in the present family as a sufficient foundation 

 even for gencrick distinction. The words quoted above, although not 

 very difficult, it is hoped, to be understood, have thus been translated 

 by this faithful chronicler of the labours of his contemporaries. 

 " L'espece que ces auteurs nomment JVasalis recurvus, — a pour 

 " tout caractcre distinctif d'avoir le nez retrousse." The writers, 

 although they did not study their logick on the same form vv^ith M. Lesson, 

 can yet tell him what name in the language of the schools that species 

 of sophism bears, which puts false premises into the mouth of an oppo- 

 nent, and from such alone deduces its conclusion. They can equally 

 suggest the name by which, in the language of honourable men, that mode 

 of animadversion is designated, which misquotes and mutilates the words 

 of a fellow labourer in science, perverts his meaning, suppresses his object, 

 and attempts to produce from such perverted statements an impression to 

 his disadvantage. 



The third animal referred to by Mr. Vigors and Dr. Horsfield, and 

 asserted by M. Lesson to be a " pretended novelty," affords, in this 

 judgment of the critick, a striking instance of that flippancy by which 

 writers of a certain class decide upon what they have no means of ascer- 

 taining. Those authours had an animal before them which bore a close 

 resemblance to that group of the LemuridcE which includes the flat 

 fronted species allied to Kycticehus, Geoff"., but having a lengthened tail 

 which the animals of that genus do not possess. It differed also from the 

 group in having four incisor teeth below, and nails more allied to those 

 of the Monkeys than of the Lemurs. From the strong affinities it 

 exhibited, the writers conjectured that it might belong to the genus 

 Cheirogaleus of M. Geoffroy, which had been indicated by M. Commer- 

 son, but not definitely distinguished either by him or succeeding writers. 

 They announced that the animal agreed with the general description of 

 M. Geoff'roy: but not having had the opportunity of entering into the 

 details, they promised a more accurate examination and report upon a 

 subject which held out, as they conceived, no little interest. This task 

 the modest critick of the " Bulletin" has taken out of their hands. 

 Without having seen the animal, the only means of coming to a just or 

 indeed any conclusion on such points, or conceding the smallest credit 



