140 Scientific IVotices. 



to those who did see it, he pronounces it at once " to be the Maki nain 

 of M. F. Cuvier." — As it happens, he might with about equal justice 

 have pronounced it " to be an Alligator." 



The fact is, as Mr. Vigors and Dr. Horsfield now upon closer inquiry 

 conceive, that they were wrong in their original conjecture. At the time 

 of publishing their observations, they had no clue to the habitat of the 

 animal, and they had no means of examining a peculiar form of South 

 America, which had been characterized by M. Cuvier in the " Rfegne 

 " Animal," under the name of Mocthora, and to which they now have 

 reason to suspect their animal belongs. They are indebted to their friend 

 Mr. Bennett for turning their attention to this point, and, from his infor- 

 mation they are inclined to conclude that the species is one of those 

 from Brazil, lately characterized by M. Spix. Such is the course of our 

 knowledge on such points. Doubt leads to conjecture; and conjecture 

 terminates sometimes in truth, frequently in errour. But even such 

 errour is not without its use. In the present instance it has afforded a 

 clue to that beautiful affinity which so intimately connects the two families 

 before us. The doubt has ascertained the point of contact. The animal 

 stands intermediate between the groups. The locality may perhaps 

 afford an artificial line by which it may be restricted to either. But in 

 the comprehensive view of the philosophick inquirer into nature it will 

 equally be a Lemur among the Monkeys^ or a Monkey among the 

 Lemurs. 



The fourth, and to the high satisfaction of the writers, the last, animal 

 described by Mr. Vigors and Dr. Horsfield is a species of Squirrel, which 

 they named after the discoverer. This M. Lesson asserts to be the Sciurvs 

 Prevostii of M. Desmarest. It is true, he admits, that the flanks of 

 the latter animal are yellow, while those of the former are white. But 

 we all know, as he continues to syllogise, how nearly allied white is to yel- 

 low: — therefore the two animals are the same : — Q. E. D. — The writers 

 have ever been in the habit of considering that a false or an imperfect 

 description of an animal is, in the eye of the naturalist, no description 

 at all. If M. Desmarest was wrong in ascribing a character to an 

 animal to which it had no claim, his name and description fall to the 

 ground. If he was correct in the characters he ascribed to it, then the two 

 animals are distinct; — distinct, at least, until proof establishes the fact that 



