HARD WICKE'S SCIENCE- G OSSIF. 



167 



Vestiges of the Natural History of 

 Creation. — The author of this work must have been 

 born a geologist and phrenologist, and have had an 

 intimate knowledge of both these sciences. Of the 

 latter science it is well known that Mr. George Combe 

 was the head of the phrenological school during a 

 great portion of his life, but I am not aware that he 

 had any knowledge of geology, and I am tolerably 

 well acquainted with his writings. The greatest 

 portion of them is devoted to mental and moral 

 philosophy. But with Mr. Robert Chambers the 

 case is quite different. He possessed an intimate 

 knowledge of both these subjects. He was a member 

 for many years, and I believe one of the original 

 members, of the Phrenological Society of Edinburgh, 

 and of course on intimate terms with Mr. George 

 Combe. That the subject of development or evolution 

 treated of in the "Vestiges" was a subject often 

 discussed by the two we may naturally suppose ; and 

 it is quite possible that Mr. Combe might not only be 

 aware of the authorship, but even assist by his advice 

 in the composition of that great work, but that it was 

 written solely by Mr. Robert Chambers I do not enter- 

 tain the slightest doubt. Mr. Robert Cox, brother-in- 

 law of Mr. Combe, wrote a review of the " Vestiges " 

 shortly after its publication, and from passages which 

 occur there I am tolerably well satisfied that Mr. 

 Combe was not the author. But what I ground my 

 opinion principally on is the following. Not very 

 long ago I was informed by a well-known author of 

 several scientific works, and who is now a professor 

 in one of our colleges, that he knew for a fact that Mr. 

 Robert Chambers was the author of the " Vestiges." 

 This may be said to be only assertion, but I know 

 that this gentleman, from the position he held during 

 the publication of the "Vestiges" in 1844, had a better 

 means than any other man, except those to whom the 

 author might have divulged the secret, of obtaining 

 the necessary information for making this assertion. 

 I may here conclude these fragmentary observations 

 by expressing my surprise that the doctrine of 

 evolution should be solely placed to the credit of Mr. 

 Darwin; when we have here a work on the same 

 subject written several years before the publication of 

 Mr. Darwin's works, in which the aim of the author 

 was to show " that the simplest and most primitive 

 type under a law to which that of like production is 

 subordinate, gives birth to the type above it, and 

 this again produces the next higher, and so on to the 

 very highest," — a work of great originality, and 

 which by the grandeur of the conceptions and the 

 occasional bursts of eloquence produces the effect of a 

 great historical poem. — Dipton. Burn. 



The Grave of the Rev. Gilbert White. — 

 Being a great admirer of Gilbert White's liistory, I 

 had long desired to visit Selborne, so I accordingly 

 drove over from here three weeks ago, accompanied 

 by two young friends, to see the old naturalist's 

 grave. We duly admired the noted yew-tree in the 

 churchyard and read the inscription on the tablet in 

 the edifice, and then began to seek for the grave. 

 Failing to find it, I spoke to one of the workmen, 

 who came and pointed out a heap of rubbish, broken 

 bricks, mortar, pieces of slate, &c. " It lies some- 

 what about there," he said. Clearing away some of 

 the debris, a headstone became visible, and on it the 

 simple letters, " G. W." "Two gents came and 

 cleaned that ere stone last year," added our guide. I 

 was pained to witness such want of respect shown to 

 the memory of one whose writings have made " Sel- 

 borne " a wide-world name ; but imagine my disgust 

 later in the day, when speaking to an inhabitant of 

 the village, who had informed me, with a vast 



amount of local pride, that "a great number of 

 strangers, some of them carriage people, came to see 

 the village in the summer," he said, in reply to my 

 remark of " Ves, Gilbert Wiiite has made it famous. 

 What a pity it is to so neglect his grave." "I don't 

 know him— never saw it," and looked utterly puzzled, 

 " Gilbert White " was evidently to him an unknown 

 name. — Helen E. IVatney. 



The "Ice Age."— In the last number of the 

 Popular Science Review I read with much interest an 

 article on the " Evidences of the Ice Age," by Mr, 

 H. Woodward, F.R.S., &c. It possessed additional 

 interest for me in the fact that I was engaged in 

 reading Mr. Geikie's "Great Ice Age" at the time 

 when the above-mentioned number of the Popular 

 Science Review reached me. It would be simply pre- 

 sumption on my part to question, on my own sole 

 authority, any statements put forth by Mr. Wood- 

 ward, but, in comparing his statements with Mr. 

 Geikie's, I was quite at a loss to account for the fol- 

 lowing discrepancy. Mr. Woodward says, at the 

 bottom of page 113, Popular Science Review, April, 

 1877 — "When the earth, from these two causes com- 

 bined, became subject to a slight variation in its two 

 hemispheres, which would give to one 7^ days more 

 of the sun's presence in one tropic than the other 

 now enjoys, then .Mr. CroU concludes the ice on the 

 more favoured pole would melt , , . &c, ; and 

 this cause alternating, would give rise to . . , 

 glacial epochs ..." &c, &c. Does Mr. Wood- 

 ward mean by the word "now," the glacial epoch, 

 or A.D, 1877 ? If the latter, it is, I suppose, correct 

 to say that the earth is 7i days longer in aphelion 

 than in perihelion ; but the point and drift of the 

 passage seem to be gone. If, on the other hand, he 

 means the glacial period, surely the interequinoctial 

 difference ought to be represented as more then than 

 it is now. Mr. Geikie, at least ("Great Ice Age," 

 P- I39)> estimates the difference as 36 days. — 

 W. D. 



Parasites of Plants. — Canyon, or any of your 

 readers, recommend a good descriptive work on the 

 parasites of plants?— 7. M. W. 



BOOKS, &c., RECEIVED. 



" Report of the United States Department of Agriculture, 

 1872." 



"Zoolo.gy." By Dr. Andrew Wilson. London and Edin- 

 burgh : W. & R. Chambers. 



"Annual Report of West London Scientific Association." 



"Annual Report of Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists' 

 Society." 



"Monthly Microscopical Journal." June. 



" Land and Water." ,, 



" Les Mondes." ,, 



" American Naturalist." May. 



" American Journal of Microscopy." May. 



"Canadian Entomologist." May. 

 &c. &c, &c. 



Communications received up to 

 T. S.— J. B.— A. S.— E. C— C. W. W.- 

 G. S. T.— H. L.— E. v.— E. S.— E. A. 

 R. J. M.— Dr. A. H. N.— D. D.— J. E. 

 — H. H. C.-R. L.— T. E. B.— J. G.- 

 E. W.— G. W. L.— W. J. V.-T. W.- 

 H. W. P.— B. W.— F. P.— B. J. S.- 

 G. F. B.— W. T.— J. R.— W. B.— R. W. 

 J. R. S. C— M. H.— E. T. M.— Dr. C. 

 — E. E.— R. D.— G. R.— J. P.— W. E.- 

 — T. V. D.— W. W.— T. S.— T. W. S.— ■ 

 A. W.-G. O. H.— J. F. R.— Dr. P. 

 C. W. B.-B. P.— F. C— J. M. M.— F. 

 M. F.— W. S. jun.— W. M. P.-P. E. 

 S. E. A. W.— J. B. P.— E. S.— G. H. R. 

 J. S. H.— F. W. F.— J. W. M.— J. T.- 

 W. R. T.— G. N.— T. H. M.— W. H. G. 

 —J. v.— E. M.— A. N.— J. T. P.— R. 

 W. H.— M. S.- C. D.— W. K. M.— J. H 

 — H. J. S.— &c. &c. &C. 



I2TH ULT. FROM : — 

 -Captain H.— C. C— 



C. W.— V. M. G.— 



P.— E. C. D.— J. F. 

 J. M. W.— W. D.— 

 -F. B.— B. W. H.— 

 -F. H. A.— A. B.— 

 — H. H. C— F. K.— 

 C. A.— B. B.— G. N. 



J. A. S.— W. H. W. 

 T. R. C. G.— H. S.— 



Q. K.— T. J. W.— 

 S.— H, M.— W. T.— 



C— H. A.— J. L.— 

 —J. S. W.— Dr. C— 

 -C. J. M.— H. S.— 

 —J. T. R.— G. W. C. 



H. B.-R. T. G.— 

 —A. R. C— ]\L O. H. 



