68 



HARDWICKE'S SCIENCE-GOSSIP. 



remnant of the origin of our optic nerve as it once 

 was, because of the above elicited fact, and also 

 because of the long authenticated fact of the nearness 

 of our optic nerve roots at present time to that struc- 

 ture.— J. W. Williams. 



The Young Platypus. — The great interest 

 excited by the discovery of the eggs of the platypus 

 by Mr. Caldwell, in Queensland, some time ago, will 

 be remembered. But the question whether the 

 platypus was oviparous having been settled, another 

 arose. How did the young platypus manage, as it 

 had long been discovered that the female was so 

 constructed as to suckle its young, and this seemed 

 most singular in the case of an animal provided with 

 the bill or beak of a fowl. The matter has been just 

 set at rest by a discovery made by the Rev. F. A. 

 Hagenauer, at Ramahynch. Mr. Hagenauer was 

 anxious to secure a pair of platypuses for the Royal 

 Park Gardens, and set a couple of his black fellows 

 to work to look for them. In their search they came 

 upon a nest containing a male and female, and, more 

 valuable than all else, a very young member of the 

 family, which seemed as if it had been just hatched. 

 None of the aboriginals had seen such a specimen 

 before, nor is there an account of a white man having 

 made a similar discovery. On examination it was 

 seen that there was no difficulty in the way of the 

 youngster. It was an inch to an inch and a-half in 

 length, and while bearing the shape of its tribe, it 

 had precisely the appearance of a "joey," being of 

 the same colour, and the bill-shaped beak perfectly 

 so as to allow it to attach itself closely to the 

 maternal teat. Mr. Hagenauer had it preserved, and 

 placed it in Professor M 'Coy's hands. This discovery 

 will supply all the knowledge that has been hitherto 

 wanting in reference to the platypus. 



Planorbis complanatus. — -The species described 

 by Jeffreys, and now universally known to concho- 

 logists under this name in Britain, is not, as admitted 

 by Gwyii Jeffreys himself in vol. v. of " British 

 Conchology," Linne's species of that name. It is, 

 however, the P. umbilicatus, Midler, and P. margina- 

 tus, Draparnauld,and the former name, having priority, 

 will have to stand, and has now been adopted by 

 most continental authorities, others still describing 

 the species as P. marginatus. Planorbis umbilicatus, 

 Taylor, from Manitoba, will need a new name. — 

 T. D. A. Cockcrell, Bedford Park, Chiswick. 



The Development of the Tadpole. — Speaking 

 of Mr. Rousselet's observation on the ciliated epiderm 

 in the tadpole, I made mention some months back 

 that, in my opinion, it needed confirmation by higher 

 powers, that was of course by means of sections. I 

 find Mr. P. E. Wallis, on p. 44, says, " I fear Mr. 

 Rousselet will meet with no success in his attempt 

 to preserve stained sections," and he gives for his 

 reason " the capillarity between the cilia and the 

 cell " obtaining as soon as the protoplasm becomes 



protoplasm no longer — as soon, indeed, as it passes 

 into the "dead protoplasm," so called wrongly, I 

 fear, by some authors. Well, Mr. Wallis, I doubt 

 this. I have some sections of the epididymus, both 

 of a man and of a cat made some years ago, and 

 when I look at them now I can see the cilia beauti- 

 fully. The same, too, of several mounts of trachea 

 from various animals. I do not see how " this 

 capillarity comes into play." Harden the tadpole 

 in J per cent, of chromic acid, cut your sections with 

 a freezing microtome, stain with logwood, mount in 

 Farrant or glycerine, and withal carefulness, and if 

 ever there were any cilia there, take an honest word 

 that you will spot them. — J. IV. Williams. 



ANIMAL PSYCHOLOGY. 



Obstinacy in a Dog. — I happen to live under 

 the same roof as a tan-terrier of abnormal propor- 

 tions — the result of feeding " too long and too well." 

 This dog, in contra-distinction to many virtues, is 

 gifted with an enormous appetite, and it is through 

 such vulgar weakness on his part that I have been 

 able to teach him a variety of tricks. Now, taking 

 into account his ingenuity for devising means of 

 working upon my feelings in order to gain his coarse 

 ends, I am surprised that he should show such sullen, 

 perverse, and, I may say, irritating obstinacy as the 

 following. Supposing that I, when sitting with 

 another person in the same room, should happen to 

 call the animal to me, he immediately puts back his 

 ears, and proceeds to go and insinuate his nose in 

 the hand of that other person, thereby displaying a 

 sovereign contempt for my request. In turn, if the 

 other person should happen to call him, the dog. 

 immediately puts on the same victimised appearance 

 and comes to me. Again, supposing while stroking, 

 the animal I pull him towards me, he will promptly 

 struggle to get away ; and, on the other hand, if I try 

 to shove him away, he will immediately endeavour to 

 inconvenience me by leaning the full weight of his 

 inflated "corpus" against my leg, and then and 

 there hang his ears forward with a decidedly pensive 

 expression. Now as this habit is universal, I should 

 like to know the cause of this perversity. Why on 

 earth doesn't he come to the person who calls him ? 

 There can be no reason in his method as far as I can 

 see ; for he certainly, as far as dogs go, is not 

 wanting in intellect. The only solution of the pro- 

 blem I can come to is that the habit is inherent in 

 the dog. There are some children (I actually know 

 one), who, when they are asked to do anything, 

 flatly refuse, not from incapability or natural dulness,. 

 but simply from an inherent and undefined feeling of 

 opposition that arises within them on every such 

 occasion. It has occurred to me that some such 

 feeling pervades this dog ; I cannot say passes 

 through his mind, because it is a moot point whether 



