1893] THE ZOOLOGICAL CONGRESS 261 



by the exhibition of sample plates. That comparatively little of 

 the time of the Congress was wasted in this way is no doubt 

 due to the courage with which the secretaries had rejected the 

 more obviously useless papers. Among the exhibits those of Mr 

 Graham Kerr, Mr Stanley Gardiner, Mr Willey, and Mr Rousselet 

 are especially worthy of mention. 



On Saturday morning a business meeting was held, at which it 

 was arranged that the next meeting should be in Germany during 

 1901. The Congress then adjourned to London for visits to the 

 Zoological Gardens and British Museum (Natural History), where 

 on the Saturday evening Sir John Lubbock gave a reception. On 

 Monday a large number of members went to Tring to see Mr 

 Rothschild's magnificent museum, and on Tuesday a smaller party 

 under the guidance of Mr Lydekker inspected the Duke of Bed- 

 ford's collection of deer at Woburn Abbey. 



In such a varied course of proceedings it is difficult to draw 

 any general conclusions as to results. Thanks to the skilful plans 

 of the secretaries, Professor Jeffrey Bell, Mr Sedgwick, and Mr 

 Bourne, and the tactful arrangements of the secretaries of the local 

 reception committee, Dr Harmer and Mr Shipley, the Congress 

 was held without a hitch. The opinion was generally expressed 

 that the scientific standard of the papers was much higher than 

 usual. The discussions were especially enjoyed, and will no doubt 

 henceforth be regarded as a chief feature of future meetings. 

 From the proceedings three impressions seem to have been gener- 

 ally felt. First, the scanty attendance of entomologists and ornithol- 

 ogists may indicate the increasing separation of those branches of 

 zoological work. The ornithologists have a congress to themselves, 

 and the entomologists also will not improbably start one, to settle 

 their own difficulties without the interference of specialists in other 

 subjects. Secondly, the greater importance attached to palaeon- 

 tology, and the increasing distrust of embryology as a guide in 

 phylogeny, were shown repeatedly. Thirdly, there seemed a feeling 

 of boredom with the interminable question of zoological nomencla- 

 ture, and a certain determination to refuse to follow rigid rules 

 when they lead to absurdities, and to trust more in the future to 

 common sense. 



