34 



introduce into the science numerous sorts founded on these 

 materials, and he went so far as to consider as sufficient docu- 

 ments rough paintings due to Chinese and Japanese draughtsmen. 

 When he only used materials due to such men as Commerson, 

 Forster, &c., he was pretty safe ; but even then, it is well known 

 that a naturalist, travelling in little known countries, is often so 

 pressed for time as to necessarily neglect in his drawings many 

 characters that will be found necessary when they will be sub- 

 mitted to the scrutiny of modern science. Patting these aside, 

 there remains in his so-called uncliaracterizecl sorts — an immense 

 number that have been seen by his predecessors ; and I think 

 that when such authorities as Cuvier, Valenciennes, PJchardson, 

 Bleeker, Kaup, Euppell, &c, admit them as distinct species, after 

 having studied them, they are at least as much entitled to be 

 believed as the zoologist who has not even seen them. 



Taken, for example, the sorts brought back by myself from 

 the central parts of South America, and deposited at the Garden 

 of Plants of Paris, we find that Dr. Gunther considers many of 

 them as identified with species of Cuvier and Valenciennes, 

 when, in the Ichthyological part of my Travels, I give them 

 as distinct. Perhaps the imperfection of my descriptions 

 may have led him to believe in their identity ; but it must 

 be remembered that those specimens were all compared with 

 Cuvier and Valenciennes' types, aside of which they are 

 placed in the Museum, and that this examination was not 

 only done by myself, but in many cases by Messrs. Valen- 

 ciennes and Dumeril, and in all cases by Mr. Guichenot. On 

 the other hand Dr. Grunther appears not to have examined the 

 Parisian collection, which is certainly the most important in the 

 world, on account of the immense quantity of typical specimens 

 it contains. 



I also think that Dr. Gunther carries too far the modern 

 tendency of uniting sorts that were considered as distinct, and, 

 misled by this principle, he has formed a certain number of 

 artificial species which do not exist in nature. It is well known 

 that in the class of fishes colours are, in general, subject to such 

 alterations as not to afford, as a general rule, specific characters, 

 'a they do in almost all the other divisions of the animal king- 

 dom, \nd that these characters must be looked for in the forms 



