REVIEWS OF NEW PUBLICATIONS, 
95 
other books on the same subject, and I earnestly recommend to them to compare with it Mr^ 
Selby’s Illustrations, Mr. Jenyns’s Manual of British Vertebrate Animals, Mr. Yaurell’s 
History of British Birds, Mr. Wood’s British Song-Birds, Mr. Mudie’s Feathered Tribes, 
and as many more as they may find it expedient to purchase. They all differ from each 
other, and from this work, but all contain useful information, ‘ setting down,’ as Don 
Quixote saith, ‘ the father, mother, country, kindred, age, place and actions to a tittle, and 
day by day, of the knight and knights of whom they treat,’ and therefore may be consulted 
with advantage.”—Preface, p. iv. 
The authors remarks (p. 7) in favour of Anatomy need not here be produced, 
as every sensible and unprejudiced naturalist of the present day must feel perfectly 
satisfied that it is better to study the whole than a part, and that no portion of 
the structure of any animal is unworthy the attention of the zoologist . 
At p. 12, in a chapter on “Practical Ornithology/’ Mr. M‘G. goes out of his 
way to thrash one of his critics :—- 
“A would-be critic in a Magazine now extinct, conscientiously warns his subscribers of 
the folly of buying our book, alleging that the writing appears to him an affected attempt 
to imitate Izaak Walton and Audubon. These excursions of ours he dislikes ‘ in toto ,’ body 
and soul, or, as he expresses it, ‘substance and spirit.’ 
“ Good pupil, be assured of this :—If ever you do an honourable deed, some one will find 
it reasonable to censure it. If you write a book, he who has penned a worse on the same 
subject, will make it his duty to decry it. Let him alone. Our walks are agreeable to 
ourselves, and useful to others, our conversation is not unworthy of the disciples of Linnaeus, 
nor is our mode of observing Nature less efficient than that adopted by our neighbours. As 
to good old Izaak, we could not choose a mGre pleasant or pious pattern ; and if my familiar 
and beloved friend, the American ornithologist, find anything, in fact, style, or manner, in 
my book, that belongs to him, he is alive, and can speak for himself. Long before I saw 
any of the admired productions of his pen or pencil, 1 wrote much as I write now; and 
when he accuses me of plagiarism, I will endeavour to convince him of his error. That time, 
however, will never come. I understand all this perfectly, and so do others. 
“ Don’t mind it: I’ll thrash the critic myself, should he be either a quinarian or a moss¬ 
trooper, whether of the English or Scotch side of the border. 
“ Were I to believe the critics, 1 should to-day fancy myself‘a genius equal to the majesty 
of Nature,’ to -morrow a mere painstaking, prosing mortal, like one who, ambitious of 
authorship, not only draws birds, but engraves them, or at least scratches them on copper 
himself, and by a pretty free use of his wife’s scissors ekes out the scanty stock of his own 
observations, and produces a book worthy of—being praised by his friends. But I believe 
nothing without proof.”—p. 12. 
And so on, in a similarly valiant strain—all by way of “ Practical Ornithology.” 
It seems to us that Mr. MacGillivray’s book speaks sufficiently for itself, whether 
in its merits or otherwise, without an elaborate defence from so interested a party 
as its own author, and especially in reply to a member of the worshipful com¬ 
pany of critics. 
After some anatomical details, Mr. M‘G. exclaims,—“ And now, good pupil, 
persevering and industrious, I cannot suppose that you hold all this to be a 
digression.” Undoubtedly if it be, it is not a useless one; but it can hardly be 
