3512 The Zoologist — May, 1873. 



(1.) That my paper was not a personal attack upon any body is 

 clear, inasmuch as I never alluded from first to last to any single 

 individual, though I did protest against the ridicule with which 

 Dr. Baldamus' theory was received in certain quarters, which I 

 took the liberty of showing was neither a respectful, a philoso- 

 phical, nor a convincing way of meeting a theory, however it might 

 at first sight appear to some to be mistaken. I can only add to 

 this, that if Mr. Hewitson chooses to put on the cap, and finds it fit, 

 and likes to wear it, he is a volunteer champion in the anti-Baldamine 

 ranks, and may fairly single me out for attack, and run a tilt at me ; 

 but then it is not fair to charge me as his aggressor. (2.) It is a 

 graver matter when Mr, Hewitson misquotes my words, in making 

 me fasten on him the title of" a would-be ornithologist," inasmuch 

 as neither to him individually, nor to those collectively who tried to 

 pooh-pooh Dr. Baldamus, did I apply any such words, though I 

 did speak of " some would-be leaders in tlie ornithological world," 

 which I maintain is a totally different matter ; and for the accuracy 

 of this I beg to refer the readers of the ' Zoologist' to the passage 

 (S. S. 3434). (3.) It is also a somewhat serious charge which Mr. 

 Hewitson brings against me that I" seem to think I monopolise the 

 love of truth." Had I written a word which savoured of such pre- 

 sumption, I would, indeed, retract it, and most humbly apologize ; 

 but after carefully examining ray paper from beginning to end, I 

 cannot find a single sentence which would give a colour to such 

 an accusation, and I know not to what he alludes. Moreover, it is 

 somewhat strange that at the end of my article, I happen to express 

 the exact contrary, when inviting Mr. Rowley, who had opposed 

 the theory of Dr. Baldamus, to give his present opinion on the 

 subject, I remarked that " both he and 1 are only desirous 

 to elicit the truth of the matter." Neither can I discover (4) on 

 what grounds I am told that I am " angry with English ornitho- 

 logists, because they have not been able to find evidence in support 

 of Dr. Baldamus' theory," Most assuredly I was not aware that I 

 had shown any anger or ill-temper in the matter; and I am equally 

 certain that 1 have never written anything which betokened annoy- 

 ance, because I have never felt any, either with those who have 

 expressed disagreement with the theory in question, ox a fortiori 

 with those who have held aloof from the subject. Indeed, if I 

 know myself at all, it is not in accordance with my natiual tempera- 

 ment to entertaiu the slightest shade of petulance against those who 



