never heard except on remarkably hot and still days, and always on open places. The sound is exactly as if a swarm of bees were in your immediate neighbourhood, though not one may be visible. Perhaps some of your readers can throw light on this subject.- -0. Sept. 5. 1831. Luminous Appearance on the Ears of a Horse. Sir, Some years ago I met with the following adventure; the rationale of which I have never satisfactorily discovered. I will describe it simply as it occurred, leaving you or your readers to elucidate it as best you can. I was returning on horseback one autumnal evening from a journey of about twelve miles, when a heavy rain came on, and continued nearly all the way. Of course I did not take it very leisurely, but came on at a brisk trot; and what with the rain and the exercise, my horse waxed pretty warm. When about half way, on his throwing up his head (an action usual with some horses, when a little distressed for breath), I thought I saw a luminous spot or two on his forehead. I examined more closely: it increased in size, and by degrees extended itself up the ears, till the tips and edges were distinctly marked out by a line of fire resembling phosphorus in colour. Thus it continued for perhaps a mile, until it gradually disappeared; leaving me in no small wonderment at the cause of so singular and fairy-like a visitation. If you or any of your correspondents can throw any light on the cause of this appearance, I think it may be interesting to many, and I am sure will be gratifying to, Sir, yours, &c.— S. T. Stoke-Ferry, Norfolk, Oct. 3. 1831. ART. V. Obsequy. By JOHN F. M. DOVASTON, Esq. A.M., of “ Mine be a breezy hill, that skirts the down; With here and there a violet bestrown, Fast by a brook, or fountain's murmuring wave; Dr. Beattie. SIR, As this Magazine is very seldom the vehicle of verses, from the affecting impression made on my heart by the " WISH" of poor Wilson, the great ornithologist, recorded in the Obituary concluding your last Volume (p. 558.), I offer you (though I had on the anvil metal more attractive) a few, written some years ago, in consequence of my having raised a mound of earth in a grove near my residence, for the purpose of my own grave; whenever it shall please the Almighty to call me from this state, where He has so very largely blessed me with happiness, to an eternal existence, which I rationally believe will be perfectly and inconceivably blessed. They are addressed to a near and dear kinsman, with an earnest injunction to him, and my other friends, to see my body there deposited: for, like the above great, good, and lamented naturalist, I had ever a "wish to be buried in some rural spot, sacred to peace and solitude, whither the charms of nature might invite the steps of the votary of the muses, the lover of science, and where the birds might sing over my grave."John F. M. Dovaston. Westfelton, near Shrewsbury, November 10. 1831. OBSEQUY. Lay me not in the charnel ground Nor silly chime be jangled. But lay me aneath my native trees, Let no proud priest in hollow slang But let the Winter Redbreast sing Let no friend's hand be flimsy-gloved, Let not my name on staring stone Some men are more than half divine, Then to my honest halls retire In Mirth's high revel bright'ning; To strains I've play'd on lightning. Taste no cake-sop, no syrup-wine, But slice the savoury haunch and chine, And as with SHAKSPEARE, SCOTT, or BURNS, One bumper of my bright FALSTAFF, These hests obey, friend-cousin mine, John Freeman Milward Dovaston. * At Oxford they still talk of "Crazy Jack of Christchurch," where they call me (from Homer) гŋłóσvvos kõp. APPENDIX. (Printed at the expense of the respective Writers. The additional sheet of " Original Communications," forming part of this Number, is given entirely at the expense of Mr. Vigors, conformably with his suggestion expressed Vol. IV. p. 559.) Controversy between W. Swainson, Esq. F.R.S. L.S. &c., and N. A. Vigors, Esq. A.M. F.R.S. &c. My dear Sir, My absence from England for some weeks past has prevented me from seeing, until within these few days, a letter from Mr. Swainson, printed in your Vol. IV. p. 481., professing to be a reply to my letter to you of the 20th of June last. (Vol. IV. p. 319.) I consequently have not time to take the notice I should wish of that letter in your forthcoming Number; more particularly as matters of greater interest than any subject connected with Mr. Swainson call at this moment for my undivided attention. I shall however resume the subject in your next publication. In the mean time my cause will suffer nothing from the delay. Your readers have already before them Mr. Swainson's unwarranted attacks upon me, as advanced in his original letter of the 13th of December, 1830; as well as my answers to them in my letter of the 20th of last June: and they can judge for themselves, without any additional observations on my part, whether I have not given a full and triumphant answer to every one of his charges. Mr. Swainson, in his second letter, leaves all these my answers perfectly untouched: he resorts in it merely to the stale device of a baffled controversialist, that of doggedly reiterating the assertions which had been again and again refuted; and, flying off to subjects utterly unimportant in themselves, and equally irrelevant to the points at issue, exhibits, by his misrepresentations, misquotations, and the contradictions contained in his statements and arguments, but the intemperate ebullitions of disappointed malice. To these new points of discussion I shall address myself one by one in your ensuing Number. There is also a letter in your last Number (Vol. IV. p. 487.) professing to be the production of M. Lesson. As that gentleman seems not to understand the nature of the subject at issue between himself and me, but to view it through the medium of others, certainly not much more friendly to him than to myself, I shall take an early opportunity of representing to him and to your readers the real state of the question. I remain, dear Sir faithfully yours, Regent's Park, Dec. 10. 1831. N. A. VIGORS. VOL. V.No. 23. [H] The Swainsonian Controversy.— Sir, I am exceedingly averse to mingle in the controversy between Mr. Swainson and Mr. Vigors; but I owe it to my own character to say, that Mr. Swainson has published extracts from my letters to him, which I expressly told him were private: because, after I had, in the passage published Vol. IV.p. 485., stated to him my difficulty as to whether Mr. MacLeay's system was considered by himself and his disciples a natural or an artificial system (thinking, as I still do, that, in matters of science, such as this, there ought to be no privacy), I received a letter from Mr. saying that his remarks on my objections to the quinary system were for my "private and individual consideration." With the next post I accordingly wrote to Mr. Swainson, enjoining him not to publish this opinion of Mr.- that he considered the system artificial which I had thus, unconscious of wrong on my part, requested his (Mr. Swainson's) opinion about. But, without further communication on the point, Mr. Swainson has published this very passage. This explanation will, I hope, save me from being "felled with a 4to volume," as M. Desmarest was afraid of. (Vol. IV. p. 488. note.) With the above reservation, so far as I am personally concerned, I care not if he publish all my correspondence about the quinarians, who, one and all, seem determined to mystify the world as to what their system is; each and all asserting that nobody, not even themselves individually, understands it. After all, is it worth understanding? I have been abused, indeed, by more than one respectable journal for treating the subject seriously. Controversies of this kind seem to me to do good in the end, though they for the moment foster ill feelings: they certainly (as in the cases in your Magazine) bring the combatants to their true level, and tend to clear up disputed facts.-James Rennie. Lee, Kent, Nov. 3. 1831. Sir, Swainson's Zoological Illustrations. YOUR readers and yourself, I suspect, are more than tired of the various controversies, and somewhat angry disputations, which have of late occupied no inconsiderable space in the pages of your Magazine. I cannot forbear, however, adding a few words, and they shall be but a few, in answer to Mr. Swainson's reply in your last Number (Vol. IV. p. 554.), on the subject of his Zoological Illustrations. Mr. Swainson observes that "my arguments touching this work are built on a false foundation, and that my inferences, consequently, are unjust." He then proceeds to state his reasons: First, he says, "the work is not published by subscription; therefore there can be no subscribers." Now, this is a truism, which, consequently, no one will have the hardihood to deny. But I really am sur prised that Mr. Swainson should catch at such a broken reed, and attempt to rest any part of his defence on so flimsy a foundation: for who does not perceive that I employed the term "subscribers" as synonymous with that of "purchasers; " a form of expression this, continually in use with periodical authors and editors themselves, in reference to those who buy their works? And be they subscribers, or be they purchasers, who are imposed upon, or whatever else they may be, is a matter of little or no moment; since imposition is wrong, and to be deprecated, be it practised upon whom it may. Secondly, Mr. Swainson says," The prospectus of the new series stated that it would be published similarly to the old series. There is, therefore, nothing unwarrantable' in the charge I complain of. The purchasers are told at the commencement what they are to pay, and what they are to expect." I have not the prospectus by me to refer to, and therefore will take Mr. Swainson's word for the truth of the foregoing statement: but, admitting the case to be as he says, still he appears to me to be only shifting the onus one step farther back, and transferring the blame from the author of the second series, now in the course of publication, to the author of the first series, commenced, I believe, in 1820-1. For, let me ask one question: Was it stated in the original prospectus or advertisement of the first series, or even on the cover of the first number published, that the purchasers (I must not call them subscribers) were to be charged, 28. 6d., at the conclusion of each volume, for a few pages of titlepage, preface, and index? If Mr. Swainson will tell me, on the word of a gentleman, that such notice was given; though even in that case the extra charge would be, I should say, a very injudicious and objectionable mode of reimbursing himself; — but if, I repeat, such notice, or any thing equivalent to it, was given, then there is an end of the controversy, and I shall be ready to acknowledge that, in strict justice, I have no right to complain. But if it was not, I do hold this charge to have been a very unwarrantable transaction in the first instance, and only to be defended now by means of a bad precedent. The case amounts to this: - Unless I greatly mistake, the extra-charge was made without notice, and in an underhand way, during the first or old series: at the commencement of the second or new series, the purchasers and the public are plainly told that they are to be treated in the same manner. To myself individually, and to every one, I suppose, who takes the work, the extra-charge of 2s. 6d. at the end of each volume can be but a trifling consideration in a pecuniary point of view: but I detest any thing bordering on imposition or unfair dealing. I hear the transaction I allude to universally reprehended; the author reflected upon, and his good faith impugned; and I see, moreover, periodical works in general fall into neglect and disrepute with many, in consequence of these and similar practices. Of Mr. Swainson, as an author and a naturalist of eminence, whose beautiful works are before the public, every one must think well; of his private character, too, I happen to have heard, from those who know him, some traits which would do honour to the character of any man: it is, therefore, the more to be regretted that such a man should lay himself open to the imputation of shabby dealing, and that, too, for the sake of so trifling a remuneration. Mr. Swainson will excuse me for saying one word more, not in the spirit of angry complaint, but in perfect good-humour and good-will, on a point which concerns himself, perhaps, as much as his purchasers: I allude to the irregularity in the publication of the numbers, and to what I may call the absence of notification, or want of making such publication known. My bookseller has a general order to supply me with the numbers as they come out. My last number (xvi.) I received so long ago (I quite forget the exact time), and I had so often enquired in vain for the next, that I concluded the work was finally discontinued. It was not till I had seen Mr. Swainson's reply in your Magazine for November, that I was aware that Nos. xvii. and xviii. of Zoological Illustrations were published. I then made, in consequence, a fresh application to the bookseller, who supplied the deficiency without delay. Would it not be for Mr. Swainson's advantage rather to put forth his numbers, if possible, at regular stated periods, well known to all concerned; or, if the non-regular system be still continued, to adopt some method of making his purchasers acquainted when the publication has actually taken place, so that they might make their application accordingly? As things now go on, the numbers come out nobody knows when; the booksellers do not take care to procure them, without a |