=Peripatus.= By ADAM SEDGWICK, M.A., F.R.S. =Myriapods.= By F. G. SINCLAIR, M.A. =Insects.= Part I. By DAVID SHARP, M.A. Cantab., M.B. Edin., F.R.S. Fully Illustrated. Medium 8vo. 17s. net.

_NATURE NOTES._--“When the following volume is completed, Mr. Sharp’s work will, we think, last for many years as the standard text-book on Entomology in England.”

NATURAL HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES OF SELBORNE. By GILBERT WHITE. With Notes by FRANK BUCKLAND, a Chapter on Antiquities by Lord SELBORNE, and new Letters, illustrated by P. H. DELAMOTTE. New and Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. In Two Volumes. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.

A HANDBOOK OF BRITISH LEPIDOPTERA. By EDWARD MEYRICK, B.A., F.Z.S., F.E.S., Assistant Master at Marlborough. Illustrated. Extra Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d. net.

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SEAWEEDS. By GEORGE MURRAY, F.R.S.E., F.L.S., Keeper of Botany in the Natural History Department of the British Museum. Illustrated. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE MARKETABLE MARINE FISHES OF THE BRITISH ISLANDS. Prepared by order of the Council of the Marine Biological Association especially for the use of those interested in the Sea-fishing industries. By J. T. CUNNINGHAM, M.A. Oxon. With a Preface by Prof. E. RAY LANKESTER, LL.D., F.R.S. Medium 8vo. 7s. 6d. net.

HANDBOOK OF FIELD AND GENERAL ORNITHOLOGY. A Manual of the Structure and Classification of Birds. With Instructions for Collecting and Preserving Specimens. By ELLIOTT COUES. Profusely Illustrated. 8vo. 10s. net.

STRUCTURE AND LIFE OF BIRDS. By F. W. HEADLEY, Assistant Master in Haileybury College. Illustrated. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

TALES OF THE BIRDS. By W. WARDE FOWLER, M.A. With Illustrations by BRYAN HOOK. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.

A YEAR WITH THE BIRDS. By W. WARDE FOWLER, M.A. With Illustrations by BRYAN HOOK. Third Edition, enlarged. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.

SUMMER STUDIES OF BIRDS AND BOOKS. By W. WARDE FOWLER, M.A. Crown 8vo. 6s.

THE NATURAL HISTORY OF AQUATIC INSECTS. By L. C. MIALL, F.R.S., Professor of Biology in the Yorkshire College, Leeds. Illustrated. Crown 8vo. 6s.

ROUND THE YEAR. A Series of Short Nature Studies. By L. C. MIALL, F.R.S., Professor of Biology in the Yorkshire College, Leeds. With Illustrations, chiefly by A. R. HAMMOND, F.L.S. Crown 8vo. 5s.

ROMANCE OF THE INSECT WORLD. By L. N. BADENOCH. With Illustrations by MARGARET J. D. BADENOCH and others. Crown 8vo. 6s.

WILD BEASTS AND THEIR WAYS. Reminiscences of Europe, Asia, Africa, and America, from 1845-1888. By Sir SAMUEL W. BAKER, Pacha, F.R.S. With Illustrations. New and Cheaper Edition. Extra Crown 8vo. 12s. 6d.

WANDERINGS IN SOUTH AMERICA, THE NORTH-EAST OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THE ANTILLES, IN THE YEARS 1812, 1816, 1820, and 1824. With Original Instructions for the perfect Preservation of Birds, etc., for Cabinets, of Natural History. By CHARLES WATERTON, Esq. Edited by the Rev. J. G. WOOD. With 100 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 6s.

_Works by A. R. WALLACE, F.R.S._

DARWINISM: An Exposition of the Theory of Natural Selection, with Some of its Applications. With Maps and Illustrations. Extra Crown 8vo. 9s.

NATURAL SELECTION AND TROPICAL NATURE. Essays on Descriptive and Theoretical Biology. Extra Crown 8vo. 6s.

THE MALAY ARCHIPELAGO: The Land of the Orang-Utan and the Bird of Paradise. A Narrative of Travel. With Studies of Man and Nature. With Maps and Illustrations. Fourth Edition. Extra Crown 8vo. 6s.

ISLAND LIFE: or the Phenomena and Causes of Insular Faunas and Floras. Including a Revision and Attempted Solution of the Problem of Geological Climates. With Illustrations and Maps. Second Edition. Extra Crown 8vo. 6s.

THE GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF ANIMALS; with a Study of the Relations of Living and Extinct Faunas as Elucidating the Past Changes of the Earth’s Surface. With Maps and Illustrations. In Two Vols. Medium 8vo. 42s.

MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD., LONDON.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Presidential Address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Newcastle-on-Tyne Meeting, 11th September 1889.

[2] Presidential Address to the Museums Association at the Meeting in London, 3rd July 1893.

[3] The corresponding figures for the year 1897-98 are: Class IV., Total vote, £10,777,537--British Museum, £162,439.

[4] Presidential Address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Report of Newcastle-on-Tyne Meeting, 1889.

[5] _Journal of the Society of Arts_, 18th December 1891.

[6] _Nature_, vol. xli. p. 177, and _infra_ p. 58.

[7] From a letter in support of the establishment of a County Museum for Buckinghamshire (24th November 1891), and an address at the opening of the Perth Museum (29th November 1895).

[8] Suggestions for the formation and arrangement of a museum of Natural History in connection with a Public School. _Nature_, vol. xli. p. 177 (1889).

[9] Published under the title of “Natural History as a Vocation,” in _Chambers’s Journal_, 10th April 1897.

[10] 3rd November 1890.

[11] Presidential Address to the Anatomical Section of the International Medical Congress. London, 4th August 1881.

[12] By an Act of Parliament, passed in the 18th year of the reign of George II., entitled, “An Act for making the Surgeons of London and the Barbers of London two separate and distinct Corporations,” it was enacted that the union and incorporation of the Barbers and Surgeons of London, made by the Act of the 32nd year of King Henry VIII., should from and after the 24th day of June, 1745, be dissolved, and that such of the members of the said united Company who were Freemen of the said Company, and admitted and approved Surgeons, within the Rules of the said Company, and their successors, should from thenceforth be made a separate and distinct Body Corporate and Commonalty Perpetual, which at all times thereafter was to be called by the name of “The Master, Governors, and Commonalty of the Art and Science of Surgeons of London.” The first Charter of the Company dates from the first year of the reign of King Edward IV. (A.D. 1461).

[13] _Journal of Anatomy and Physiology_, vol. ix. May 1875.

[14] The hope expressed above was soon realised in the magnificent bequest of Sir Erasmus Wilson, who died in 1884, leaving nearly the whole of his property, amounting to upwards of £200,000, to the College of Surgeons unfettered by any conditions. The part that I was permitted to take in bringing about this great benefit to the Museum cause has always been a source of unmitigated satisfaction to me.

[15] Delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 14th February 1870.

[16] Owen in _Works of John Hunter_, Palmer’s edition, vol. iv. p. vi.

[17] An account of this transaction, with some important remarks upon it by Mr. Clift, is appended to Professor Owen’s edition of Hunter’s _Essays and Observations_, referred to above. The late Sir Benjamin C. Brodie in his autobiography, prefixed to Mr. Charles Hawkins’ edition of his works (1865, vol. i. p. 102), speaks of it in the following words: “Some years before his [Sir Everard Home’s] death, he got great discredit from having destroyed a considerable portion of John Hunter’s manuscripts which had come into his possession as one of Hunter’s executors. This act was equally unjustifiable and foolish. It was unjustifiable because the manuscripts should have been considered as belonging to the museum, which Parliament had purchased; and it was foolish, because it has led to the notion that he had made use of John Hunter’s observations for his own purposes much more than was really the case. I had frequent opportunities of seeing these papers during nine or ten years, in which I was accustomed, more or less, conjointly with Mr. Clift, to assist him in his dissections. They consisted of rough notes on the anatomy of animals, which must have been useful to Hunter himself, or which would, I doubt not, have afforded help to Mr. Owen in completing the catalogue of the museum; but they were not such as could be used with much advantage by another person. In pursuing his own investigations, Home sometimes referred to these; but I must say that, while I was connected with him, I never knew an instance in which he did not scrupulously acknowledge whatever he took from them, or do justice to his illustrious predecessor. Unhappily, he was led afterwards to deviate from this right course; and in his later publications I recognise some things which he has given as the result of his own observation, though they were really taken from Hunter’s notes and drawings. One of these is a paper on the progressive motion of animals, and another a series of engravings, representing the convolutions of the intestinal canal, and neither of them of much scientific value.”--See also a note on the same subject in the obituary notice of Sir B. Brodie in the _Lancet_, 25th October 1862.

It is very possible that the extent to which Home made use of these manuscripts had been much exaggerated; but Brodie certainly did not fully appreciate either their value or the amount of Home’s plagiarism. It is not in his latest writings, but in the first volume of his lectures on Comparative Anatomy, published in 1814, that these chiefly occur, as will be seen by the editorial notes appended by Professor Owen to Hunter’s Essays. The only justification which can be set up for Home is, that the observations quoted without acknowledgment were really made by him when acting as Hunter’s pupil or assistant, and had become incorporated in the papers of his master; but nothing of the kind appears ever to have been alleged, and this, of course, would be no excuse for first retaining possession of, and subsequently destroying nearly the whole of the manuscripts.

[18] Baden Powell, _Unity of Worlds and of Nature_, 2nd edition, 1856, p. 448.

[19] A work in many respects far in advance of the age in which it appeared (1844). It was published anonymously, but is now known to have been written by Robert Chambers of Edinburgh.

[20] Charles Darwin was grandson of Erasmus Darwin, mentioned above.

[21] _Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology: a Free Examination of Darwin’s Treatise on the Origin of Species._ Boston, 1861.

[22] For the bearings of the Evolution theory of Creation on this subject, see Baden Powell, _op. cit._

[23] Owen on the “Aye-Aye.” _Trans. Zool. Soc._ vol. v. p. 92.

[24] In New Guinea and North Australia there are actually species of kangaroos, constituting the genus _Dendrolagus_, which habitually reside in trees; not climbing among the smaller boughs, as is the manner of the koalas and opossums, but sitting on the larger horizontal branches. Their feet present a marked deviation from those of the common kangaroos of the plains, the deviation being _in the direction_ of the feet of the koala. They are shorter and broader; the lateral toes are relatively more developed, and are on the same plane with the fourth or large toe, and although they have no hallux or first toe, the bone of the tarsus (internal cuneiform), which usually supports that digit, is of relatively larger size.

The phalangers, a family of climbing vegetable-feeding marsupials, form another link in the structure of their feet between the kangaroo and the koala, though most nearly resembling the latter. On the other hand, in a very remarkable little ground-dwelling animal, the _Chœropus_, the kangaroo type of foot is modified in the opposite direction, all the digits except the fourth being reduced to excessively rudimentary proportions.

[25] In examining into the validity of the derivative hypothesis, much is to be expected from the study of the geographical distribution of animals and plants, both in present and in former times; but such study will be quite in vain unless morphologists have first determined correctly the affinities of the animals and plants treated of. It is obvious that all inferences from geographical or palæontological research are useless, unless the classification on which they are based is at least approximately true to nature.

[26] The two great branches of the mammalia referred to are--(1) the Monodelphous, or placental, comprising the great bulk of the animals of the class; and (2) the Didelphous, or nonplacental. The latter, which are the animals commonly known as _Marsupialia_, or pouched animals, though varying extremely in the structure of the feet, teeth, etc., also in their food and manner of life, all agree together, and differ from the monodelphia in numerous important characters of the skeleton, brain, heart, and especially of the reproductive organs and processes. The marsupials are, at the present day, entirely confined to Australia, its neighbouring islands, and the American continent, though, in former times, they had a more extensive geographical range.

[27] Published originally in the _Month_, 1869.

[28] Paper read at the Church Congress (Reading Meeting), 2nd October 1883.

[29] Reply to an Address presented to the President of the British Association by representatives of the various Trade Societies constituting the Newcastle-on-Tyne, Gateshead, and District Trades-Council at the Working Men’s Meeting, Newcastle-on-Tyne, 14th September 1889.

[30] Lecture at the Royal Institution of Great Britain, 25th April 1873.

This essay represents the state of our knowledge twenty-five years ago. The accumulation of facts since that date, especially through the labours of the able palæontologists working in the rich fields of discovery in America has been enormous. If the essay were recast now, the scheme of classification at p. 144 would be crowded with additional names, but the main outlines would remain the same. Many gaps would be filled up, which would strengthen the argument, but it is perhaps more easily followed in the comparatively simple form in which it is here presented.

[31] Presidential address in the Department of Zoology and Botany. British Association. Dublin Meeting, 15th August 1878.

[32] Address to the General Meeting of the Society, held in the Zoological Gardens in celebration of the Fiftieth Anniversary of Her Majesty’s reign, 16th June 1887.

[33] Who was present at the reading of this address.

[34] Lecture at the Royal Colonial Institute, 8th January 1895.

[35] All the figures which illustrate this paper are taken, with the kind permission of the publishers, Messrs. A. & C. Black, from Flower & Lydekker’s _Introduction to the Study of Mammals_.

[36] The skeleton is almost the only part of a whale which can be satisfactorily preserved, but life-sized models of the principal species will soon be exhibited in the British Natural History Museum.

[37] Lecture at the Royal Institution of Great Britain, 25th May 1883.

[38] The muscles of the forearm of an allied species, _Balænoptera rostrata_, were described by Macalister in 1868, and Perrin in 1870.

[39] British Association for the Advancement of Science (York Meeting), 1st September 1881.

[40] _Spectator_, 23rd April 1881.

[41] _Endymion_, vol. ii. p. 205.

[42] Webster’s _Dictionary_.

[43] British Association for the Advancement of Science (Oxford Meeting), 9th August 1894.

[44] Address delivered at the Anniversary Meeting of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 27th January 1885.

[45] The Malay of Blumenbach was a strange conglomeration of the then little known Australian, Papuan, and true Malay types.

[46] Further information upon the Negrillos and Bushmen, and later views as to their relations to each other and to the true Negroes, will be found in the article which follows “On the Pygmy Races of Men.”

[47] Lecture at the Royal Institution of Great Britain, 13th April 1888.

[48] Herodotus, Book ii. 32, Rawlinson’s translation, p. 47.

[49] _Eléments d’Anthropologie Général_, p. 463. Paris, 1885.

[50] See “On the Osteology and Affinities of the Natives of the Andaman Islands” (_Journal Anthropological Institute_, vol. ix. p. 108, 1879); and “Additional Observations on the Osteology of the Natives of the Andaman Islands” (_ibid._ vol. xiv. p. 115, 1884).

[51] The scattered information upon this subject was first collected together by Hamy in his “Essai de co-ordination des Matériaux récemment recueillis sur l’ethnologie des Négrilles ou Pygmées de l’Afrique équatoriale,” _Bull. Soc. d’Anthropologie de Paris_, tome ii. (ser. iii.), 1879, p. 79.

[52] _A Journey to Ashango-land_, 1867, p. 315.

[53] _Through the Dark Continent_, vol. ii.

[54] _La Gazette Géographique_, 1887, p. 153, quoted by Quatrefages.

[55] In a paper read before the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 14th February 1888, and published in the August number of the Journal.

[56] In his letters Emin speaks of an Akka man as “3 feet 6 inches” high, though this does not profess to be an observation of scientific accuracy as does the above. He says of this man that his whole body was covered by thick, stiff hair, almost like felt, as was the case with all the Akkas he had yet examined.

[57] Since this was written indications of the existence of a dwarf tribe in Mount Atlas have been collected and published by Mr. R. G. Haliburton, and Sergi and Kollman have adduced evidence tending to show the former extension of small races into several regions of Southern and Central Europe.

[58] The substance of this essay was delivered as a lecture at the Royal Institution of Great Britain, on the evening of Friday, 7th May 1880, and subsequently published in the _Proceedings_ of that body. It was republished as a separate work with additional illustrations (Macmillan & Co., 1881).

[59] See _Bits and Bearing-Reins_, by Edward Fordham Flower: London, 1879.

[60] A word used by the natives of Tahiti, spelt _tattowing_ by Cook, who gives a minute account of the method in which it is performed in that island. _First Voyage_, vol. ii. p. 191.

[61] _First Voyage_, vol. ii. p. 633.

[62] _Voyage Round the World_, ed. 1717, vol. i. p. 32.

[63] H. H. Bancroft, _Native Races of the Pacific States of North America_, vol. i. 1875.

[64] See Bancroft, _op. cit._ vol. i., for numerous citations from original observers regarding these customs.

[65] _Heart of Africa_, vol. i. p. 297.

[66] The mutilation of both lips was also observed by Rohlfs among the women of Kadje, in Segseg, between Lake Tsad and the Benwe.

[67] _Cook’s First Voyage_, vol. iii. p. 456.

[68] Hamy, _Revue d’Anthropologie_, January 1879, p. 22.

[69] A tribe of Indians inhabiting the neighbourhood of the Columbia River, North America.

[70] Bancroft, _op. cit._ vol. i. p. 238.

[71] T. K. Townsend, _Journey to the Columbia River_, p. 175.

[72] Vol. iv. p. 388.

[73] Morton’s _Crania Americana_, p. 116.

[74] A gentleman of advanced age lately [1879] showed me a circular depression round the upper part of his head, which he believed had been produced in this manner, as the custom was still prevailing at the time of his birth in the district of Norfolk, of which he was a native.

[75] Sydenham Society’s edition, by Dr. Adam, vol. i. p. 270.

[76] Gosse, “Essai sur les Déformations artificielles du Crane,” _Annales d’Hygiene_, 2 ser. tom. iv. p. 8.

[77] Ample references to the literature of artificially produced deformities of the cranium are given by Prof. Rolleston, in Greenwell’s _British Barrows_ (1877), p. 596. To these may be added, Lenhossek, _Des Déformations artificielles du Cranes_, etc., Budapest, 1878, and Topinard, “Des Déformations ethniques du Crane,” in the _Revue d’ Anthropologie_, July 1879, p. 496.

[78] American missionary at Swatow; _Times_, 2nd September 1880.

[79] Dr. Jamieson says, “The fashionable length for a Chinese lady’s foot is between 31⁄2 and 4 inches, but comparatively few parents succeed in arresting growth so completely. The above, taken from a woman in the middle station of life, measures almost exactly 5 inches.”

[80] It seems to be a very common idea with artists and sculptors, as well as anatomists, that the second toe ought to be longer than the first in a well-proportioned human foot, and so it is conventionally represented in art. The idea is derived from the Greek canon, which in its turn was copied from the Egyptian, and probably originally derived from the negro. It certainly does not represent what is most usual in our race and time. Among hundreds of bare and therefore undeformed feet of children I lately examined in Perthshire, I was not able to find one in which the second toe was the longest. As in all apes--in fact, in all other animals--the first toe is considerably shorter than the second, a long great toe is a specially human attribute, and instead of being despised by artists, it should be looked upon as a mark of elevation in the scale of organised beings.

[81] See, among many others, the section headed “Improprieties of Dress,” in Dr. Gaillard Thomas’s _Practical Treatise on the Diseases of Women_ (5th edit. 1881, p. 45), for convincing proofs (not mere general declamation) of the ill effects arising from tight-lacing.

[82] From the _Proceedings of the Royal Society_, vol. xxxiii. 1882, with slight alterations.

[83] From the _Proceedings of the Royal Society_, vol. lv. 1894, with slight alterations.

[84] Much misconception as to the real nature of such researches exists in the popular mind, and is perpetually reproduced in quasi-scientific literature. It is commonly said that “Owen evolved a complete extinct creature from the fragment of a single bone.” The “restoration” of _Dinornis_ especially is quoted as a triumph of inductive reasoning, whereas it was simply the empirical application of existing knowledge. Direct comparison of the fragment with the bones already in the Museum having shown that it most closely resembled the femur of the existing ostrich, but was of larger size, all that was really “predicted” or “evolved” was that a bird having a thigh bone like that of an ostrich, but of larger size, had existed in New Zealand. Another well-known but more daring instance of inference as to the general characters and habits of an extinct animal from a very slender foundation was less fortunate. A mutilated skull from Australia, with a tooth of very remarkable form, was described in 1859, as indicating “one of the fellest and most destructive of predatory beasts,” and named accordingly _Thylacoleo carnifex_. Upon the same empirical principle as in the former case, the tooth had been compared with various teeth of known animals, and appeared to resemble one which is characteristic of many recent carnivorous animals, especially lions and tigers. The resemblance, however, was a very superficial one, and the search for its nearest analogue was unfortunately not carried far enough, or it would have been found in a group of Marsupials of which the existing members are harmless, vegetable feeders. When the remainder of the dentition was discovered it was seen that the famous _Thylacoleo_ really belonged to this group, and had no claims to the attributes assigned to it. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the abundant demonstration of its fallacy, Owen continued, with characteristic tenacity, to maintain to the last his original assumption, never acknowledging that, however valid his reasoning might have been, it was entirely vitiated by its foundation upon false premises.

[85] _On the Extent and Aims of a National Museum of Natural History_, 2nd edit. 1852, p. 7.

[86] _The North American Review_, September 1895.

[87] Centenary Meeting of the Linnean Society, 24th May 1888.

[88] The Duke of Argyll.