• [ 52 ] 



X. Note on Mr. MacLeay's Abase of the Dichotomous Method 

 in Natural History. By the Rev. Dr. Fleming. 



To the Editors of the Philosophical Magazine and Annals. 



" Art thou thus bolden'd, man, by thy distress ? 

 Or else a rude despiser of good manners, 

 That in civility thou seem'st so empty ?" 



Gentlemen, 



"XTOUR Magazine for June having reached me at the or- 

 -*- dinary period, I proceeded to an examination of its con- 

 tents with the usual degree of interest. The article from the 

 pen of Mr. MacLeay " On the Dying Struggle of the Dichoto- 

 mous System " naturally attracted my notice, not merely as 

 an attack against myself, but as the exhibition of a mode of 

 conducting philosophical discussion I had never witnessed 

 before. Whether this new style be calculated to advance the 

 interests of science, to increase the respectability of your 

 Journal, or to promote friendship among naturalists, must be 

 left to the decision of the moral feeling of your readers and 

 the public. In the meantime, however, I may take the liberty 

 of stating, that if there be any of your readers capable of re- 

 lishing such kind of lucubrations, they may blame you for 

 having, hitherto, neglected to gratify their taste ; while I assure 

 them that I have no wish to secure their favour. 



The subject of " Methods in Natural History" is one of very 

 great importance to the interests of science, though hitherto in 

 this country in a great measure disregarded. Discussions con- 

 nected with it, and conducted in a suitable manner, could not, 

 in such circumstances, fail to be useful. Had Mr. MacLeay, 

 therefore, confined his attack against me as one who admired 

 the dichotomous method and held quinarianism in derision, — 

 to the merits of the respective systems, he would have received 

 the satisfaction of a candid reply ; as I am not aware of hav- 

 ing published any opinion which I am afraid to defend, or 

 would be ashamed to modify or abandon with increasing know- 

 ledge. But Mr. MacLeay, having laid aside the language of 

 a gentleman, and violated the customary civilities of life, has 

 compelled me, in due regard to my own character, to pass 

 over in silence this effusion of his pen, which is probably with- 

 out a parallel in the records of science. 



As Mr. Vigors has thought proper to appear in connection 

 with the publication in question, I request him to assure his 

 friend at Cuba, that he never was the object of my malice or 

 envy, but that at present he shares largely of my pity. 



Before concluding, I beg to assure your scientific readers, 

 that I still adhere to the opinions I formerly expressed in my 



"Philo- 



