656 
ON THE USE AND ABUSE OF PRINTS. 
between four and five hundred species, has proved no light undertaking, pressed 
as we have frequently been with other matters. But the pleasure derived 
from an attentive examination of each plate, and its accompanying letter-press, 
has fully repaid us for all trouble, and we trust that the condensed history of 
European birds thus published in our Journal will be of some service to the 
ornithologist, especially as theie is no other English work supplying information 
of a similar nature. 
The last part contains title-pages to the five volumes, and a classified list of 
the birds described in the whole work, which will enable subscribers to arrange 
the plates in their proper order. In our next or some future number we shall 
possibly give a list of the birds of Europe, adopting Mr. Gould’s arrangement 
as far as we coincide with him in views. 
The list of subscribers contains a large number of the nobility and gentry, but 
fewer scientific men than-we had expected. Men of science, we know, are often 
not too rich, but the names of several ornithologists not deficient in the good 
things of this world do not figure here. Among the individuals whose names are 
known to science we find the following :—Mr. Audubon ; T. B. L. Baker, Esq.; 
Professor Bell ; T. C. Eyton, Esq.; Mr. Hewitson ; Sir. W. Jardine, Bart. ; 
Rev. Leonard Jenyns; Dr. Shirley Palmer; W. H. Rudston Read, Esq.; 
M. Temminck; Mr. Yarrell ; &c. &e. 
It now only remains for us to present our best thanks to S. H. Haslam, Esq., 
F.L.S., of Chesham, near Manchester, for the loan of some of the early Parts of 
this work, and to Mr. Gould for his kindness in transmitting, expressly for our 
“ Sketches,” Parts VII. to XXII., both inclusive. 
Campsall Hall , March 1, 1839. 
ON THE USE AND ABUSE OF PLATES OF NATURAL OBJECTS. 
By Peter Rylands, Esq. 
The perusal of the politely-written critique of Mr. Lees (p. 288) convinces me 
that his views and my own on the subject in dispute are not very dissimilar ; 
still, however, there are one or two points in his paper which demand a brief 
notice. 
Mr. Lees commences by stating that my remarks (Vol. III., p. 247) were 
decidedly to the effect that description was far superior to delineation; and that 
the former was the sole legitimate source for the student to trust to.’’ Mr. L. has 
here slightly (though I am sure unintentionally) misrepresented the tenour of 
