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 surannee de Linnaeus." 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 recens," 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.