ii6 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



book, materially, and that which concerns 

 its intellectual self; that is, its way of put- 

 ting things such a handling of teaching 

 processes as recognizes that good teaching 

 is an art, and the true teacher an artist. As 

 good tools for teacher and learner, American 

 school geographies, arithmetics, readers, 

 and lately grammars, are not excelled abroad. 

 It is noteworthy, however, that hitherto 

 so much could not be said of American 

 efforts in the matter of elementary school- 

 books on science. Herein has England set 

 us an example. The " Science Primers," re- 

 printed by the Appletons, are very remark- 

 able books as showing how a high knowl- 

 edge in these departments may be set before 

 a little child. However, in this matter of 

 American science-teaching of the little ones, 

 the tide is setting in. It must be admitted 

 that in every thing pertaining to books, and 

 elementary teaching of animated Nature, 

 we are far behind England. Dr. Hooker's 

 "Child's Book of Nature" is the best of 

 its class, though sadly needing rewriting. 

 But when we come to zoology proper, a 

 history of our efforts at elementary book- 

 making is more interesting than creditable. 

 The earliest serious effort is that of Daniel 

 Haskel " The Juvenile Class-Book of Nat- 

 ural History," 1841. It is for children, and 

 the author boasts in the following style 

 over its systematic arrangement: "The 

 classification, which forms an important 

 feature of the work, is founded on external 

 resemblance and visible habits. . . . This 

 classification is much more simple, and bet- 

 ter adapted to the young mind, than that of 

 Linnajus, which is founded on occult resem- 

 blances, and ranks the cow and the whale, 

 animals which inhabit different elements, 

 and are otherwise very unlike, in the same 

 general class, Mammalia.'''' As to man, he 

 says, " Buffon divides mankind into six 

 classes," and he does likewise. But the 

 word " class," though often used, has no 

 certain sense in this little book. Leaving 

 man, the work rs divided into Quadrupeds, 

 Birds, Fishes, Reptiles, and Insects. The 

 quadrupeds are divided into thirteen classes, 

 as first class, second class, etc. Then come 

 the " Unclassed Animals," viz., " the ele- 

 phant, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, tapir, 

 camel, Arabian camel, llama, camelopard, 

 bear, badger, raccoon, kangaroo, opossum. 



ant-eater, sloth, jerboa." He says these 

 " are animals which cannot be classed, but 

 each of which by itself forms a distinct 

 species." The birds are given in like man- 

 ner in six classes, with " unclassed birds, 

 the ostrich, cassowary, dodo." The fishes 

 are in four classes. The first class em- 

 braces the cachelot, grampus, porpoise, dol- 

 phin, whale." As for the sword-fish, he is 

 left out in the cold. The "fourth class" 

 of fishes embraces the lobster, crab, tor- 

 toise, oysters, snails, and such. 



The next attempt at a natural history for 

 schools was (we speak from memory) by 

 Abram Ackerman. It was a mere compila- 

 tion, with not a particle of science behind it 

 or in it. It had the credit, however, oJ' not 

 being the injurious book that Haskel's was. 

 In 1849 appeared "Class-Book of Zoolofiy: 

 designed to afford to Pupils in Common 

 Schools and Academies a Knowledge of the 

 Animal Kingdom. By Prof. B. Jaeger." 

 The educational plane was not then up to 

 this little book, which, as a classification, 

 or systematic exhibit of the animal king- 

 dom, had not its equal ; and, besides this, 

 much of it was really American, but zool- 

 ogy proper it utterly failed to teach. Prof. 

 Wortliington Hooker's "Natural History, 

 for the Use of Schools and Families," ap- 

 peared in 1860. It is a good book, and 

 holds its own in the market because of its 

 pleasant and readable style. As a classifi- 

 cation it is too meagre, and of zoology it 

 contains but little. We must not pass un- 

 mentioned the Ruschenberger series of 

 "First Books in Natural History," begun 

 in 1842. These were little else than trans- 

 lations from the text of Milne Edwards and 

 Achille Comte. Very excellent little man- 

 uals they were, but extending, as they did, 

 to eight volumes, they lost all claim to be 

 called a " Primer of Natural History." " Prin- 

 ciples of Zoology, by Agassiz and Gould," 

 1848, is a high text-book; and of a like 

 nature must be regarded "A Manual of 

 Zoology," by Sanborn Tenney, 1865, with 

 its smaller companion by the same author; 

 both good books so far as systematizing 

 goes. 



It is evident, then, that a good, true 

 American book, worthy of being called a 

 "Prhner of Zoology," had not appeared. 

 In the fullness of belief, we avow our con- 



