The third and last objection is as new as it is singular; and has been urged against Miscellanies in general by an anonymous French writer.[[1]] However an author may feel annoyance or disappointment, that another should be the first to publish discoveries, which he fancies belong exclusively to himself, he surely has no title to complain. The field of Nature is open to the inquiries of all. In her domain there are not yet established any scientific preserves.[[2]] If occupation or indolence does not permit one labourer to make known his discoveries, is another (who perhaps unconsciously has been working on the same ground) to hide the knowledge he has gained? This is surely a principle at once illiberal and unjust. At this time, there is not perhaps a single department of Zoology which is not employing the attention of more than one writer. It is to the honour, and to the lasting benefit of science, that it should be so: and although a great part of the new objects collected during my travels in Europe and Brazil have recently been made public by MM. Temminck and Godart, I feel rejoiced that this has been done by such distinguished men.
I have been induced to enter (perhaps too fully) into a general defence of Zoological miscellanies, from the opinion I entertain of their great utility. First, in diffusing a general knowledge, and exciting a taste for such pursuits among the great mass of readers; and secondly, as being a prompt and interesting channel of communicating new discoveries to the scientific world. Their periodical appearances and comparative cheapness renders them of easy access to the student; and, if well conducted, they unite all that is essential from the pen and the pencil.
Several foreign journals have noticed the appearance of these Illustrations, and generally in such terms as to stamp a value on their contents. One of these, however,[[3]] contains several misrepresentations, which have doubtless escaped the notice of the editor; and which, therefore, it may be as well to explain in this place. The writer in this journal, while noticing my Illustrations, seems to have mixed up with it criticisms intended for another periodical miscellany,[[4]] to which this has, perhaps, given birth, and which professes to be on a similar plan. He states that these Illustrations are to be completed in sixty numbers, making five volumes. No such declaration, to my knowledge, has ever been made, although such is the averred plan of the Naturalist's Repository. The reviewer goes on to state: "Il suit pour l'Entomologie et la Conchologie la classification surannée de Linnæus." This is not a very respectful mode of speaking of the labours of the greatest naturalist whom his age produced; but the proposition is a total mistake; the charge is refuted by almost every page of my work; and, what is rather extraordinary, by the very quotations of the reviewer. In reply to the regret expressed, "que l'auteur n'indique pas toujours les ouvrages les plus récens," I should have been thankful had he subjoined what works these were; as I do not find, in the monthly lists of the Bulletin, any one which I have not consulted or referred to, if connected with the objects here described.[[5]] M. de Ferussac's work has been regularly cited, but his Prodromus I have never been able to procure, either in England or Paris.
And here I cannot refrain from adverting to the great number of Zoological publications which have appeared in this country during the last three years; a number far exceeding in proportion that of any period in the annals of the science. Dr. Horsfield has commenced a beautiful work on the Animals of Java; and Mr. Sowerby is prosecuting his Genera of Shells with much zeal, and with increased ability. Both these appear periodically. They are conducted on the modern principles of science, and do credit to their authors. The Naturalist's Repository, before alluded to, likewise appears monthly, but is carried on according to the Linnæan system, pure and unadulterated. All these, however, unite in showing how rapidly the taste for such works has increased. Added to these, a new quarterly Journal, exclusively devoted to Zoology, has been announced, and, if conducted on liberal principles, its utility will be very great.
But nothing, perhaps, has more fully evinced the state of public feeling on this point among men of enlightened minds, than the discussions which have arisen on the present state of the British Museum. It is a subject on which I might be tempted to say much, did I not feel, that among those who do not know me, I might be suspected of interested or unworthy motives. But from the retirement of a country life, I may now be allowed perhaps to say a few words. It is indeed most true, that, in the Zoological department, this institution is a full century behind the rest of Europe; I might almost add, of America. But the fault is deep-rooted; and does not spring from the person (whoever he may be) to whom this overwhelming charge is given. It is ridiculous to suppose that the exertions of any one person (however great his talents, his zeal, and his assiduity,) are sufficient to discharge the duties of so complicated an office. Such a supposition implies the expectation of a moral impossibility; and so long as such a Herculean task is allotted him, so long will the Museum continue, with little alteration, in its present state. Where we have one Zoologist, the museums of Paris, Berlin, and Vienna have many; each is charged with the care of one particular branch; and, by their united efforts, the whole is displayed to the examination of the scientific, and to the view of the public. Each professor has thus leisure to prosecute the most important objects of his duty; i. e. to examine, compare, and describe, to detect analogies, to investigate affinities, and to give to the world the fruits of his studies. To France more particularly this honour is due. And what has been the result? Why, that Paris has become the Zoological university of Europe; and that the principles which have emanated from it, are now considered the only true ones by which Nature is to be studied.
It is not my object to attach reproach to any body of men collectively, or to any one individually; but truth is not to be concealed. Every writer who has the advancement of his favourite study at heart, is bound (however feebly) to advocate its cause. The truth of the preceding remarks cannot be questioned; and it remains with those in power, to consider well, whether such a state of things is consistent with the honour and reputation of the country; with the justice due to those great men who founded the institution; and to the expectations of the public, by whom it is supported.
Warwick, October, 1823.
