1883.] Do Snakes Swallow their Young ? 477 
by a person collecting the experience of others, and com- 
paring it with his own ; one having observed one thing, and 
another another.” — (P. 16.) 
And when reviewing Charles Waterton I said : — 
“ In investigating what White calls a ‘ province ’ in na- 
tural history, especially in a strange place or foreign country, 
it is necessary at first to make inquiry in every available 
quarter, and test the information by personal examination ; 
or carefully question various intelligent witnesses of cha- 
racter, and perhaps devoid of preconceived opinions or 
theories, as to what they have seen, to ascertain the relia- 
bility or the apparent correctness of what is advanced, and 
give it as such. It is observation, conversation, reading, 
and reflection that make the naturalist ; but principally 
observation, and passing the rest of his information through 
his mind to make it his own. Waterton doubtless made 
use in some form of the information of others, although he 
did not acknowledge it. How did he acquire even the com- 
mon names of animals unless he derived them in some way 
from his fellow-creatures ? ” — (P. 38.) 
What I have written has no reference to Mr. Goode, with 
whom I had every reason to be pleased. The “ British 
Quarterly ” for April had good cause to feel “ surprised ” on 
finding that Miss Hopley had made no reference to my work, 
“ the more especially that she seems to have read everything 
on the subject,” and that I supplied “ a good deal that she 
was in need of as evidence.” The fad is she has suppressed 
everything I wrote on the subject, after having read “ Con- 
tributions ” (as she has admitted), and used the book to find 
the Report of the American Convention, given, as I have 
said, at pp. 36 to 38, with my comments to supplement its 
deficiencies. For this reason Chapter XXVII., on “ Do 
Snakes afford a Refuge to their Young ?” is not “ up to the 
times,” for it does not contain the real evidence on the 
question. Miss Hopley doubtless read all my letters (six in 
number) in “ Land and Water,” and noticed that Mr. Goode 
specially mentioned me twice in his paper ; yet she quotes 
the very short remarks of a dozen others mentioned in it, 
in which, as I have said, “ there is much error,” while she 
has passed over my information published in “ Land and 
Water,” which made twenty-two large double-column pages 
of the book, and ten pages which did not appear in that 
journal, although sent to it. In fad all that I have written 
about the origin of Mr. Goode’s paper appears plainly in 
“ Contributions,” except that of sending the printed slips 
from “Land and Water” to the editor mentioned, and 
afterwards receiving a courteous call from Mr. Goode, 
