290 The Scottish Naturalist. 



for the most part accurate — some of them being not very brief — 

 by the best writers in their respective departments of knowledge. 

 Thus, those on " Mind," " Reason," " Instinct," and allied 

 subjects are by Professor Bain, of Aberdeen ; those on Human 

 Insanity by Dr. Browne, of Dumfries, lately Commissioner in 

 Lunacy for Scotland; and those on Veterinary subjects by 

 Professor John Gamgee, formerly of the New Veterinary 

 College, Edinburgh, and Albert Veterinary College, London. 



But the Zoological articles appear to constitute a singular 

 exception to the general rule — that groups of articles are con- 

 tributed by specialists eminent in their departments. I am 

 indebted to Dr. Findlater, the Editor of the Encyclopaedia, for 

 informing me (in a letter dated February, 1873) tnat " tne 

 greater number of the Zoological articles . . . were written 

 by the Rev. J. Montgomery, formerly Minister of the Free 

 Church, Innerleithen," and those upon " a considerable number 

 of the Lower Forms of Animal Life by the late Dr. Day, at one 

 time Professor of Anatomy and Physiology in St. Andrews 

 University." Professor Nicol, of Aberdeen, appears to have 

 been the immediate Editor of the Zoological department. 



Now, not one of the gentlemen above mentioned was or is a 

 Zoologist proper, and specially qualified thereby for contributing 

 articles of a kind that will be accepted as of equal value with 

 those contributed, in their specialities, by Professors Bain or 

 Gamgee, or by Dr. Browne. In the List of Authors given in 

 Volume X. (1868) there is, curiously enough, considering the 

 large proportion of space in the Encyclopaedia occupied by 

 Zoological articles, no Zoologist proper or professional, unless 

 Dr. Strethill Wright of Edinburgh, or Mr. Francis, Editor of 

 " The Field," be so regarded. 



This anomaly may possibly have been amended in the new 

 edition of the Encyclopcedia — that of 1874, the prospectus of 

 which professes that "its articles are written by those only who 

 are specially, and in most instances practically, acquainted with 

 the subjects." But such a supposition or hope is incompatible 

 with the assurance given us by a well-known Edinburgh book- 

 seller, that Chambers's Encyclopaedia is stereotyped ; which means 

 that the defects of the first edition are perpetuated in its suc- 

 cessors, except in so far as alterations may be embodied in 

 Supplements or Addenda. 



This matter of stereotyping seems to me a serious mistake and 

 nuisance in all classes of scientific works, bearing in mind how 



