COPRESPONDENCE 
A PORTUGUESE PARALLEL TO VHOMYLODON LISTATI. 
Ir a mouse may help a lion, may I venture to draw attention to the rather 
striking parallelism which exists between the discovery of such fresh remains 
of Neomylodon in the dust of a large cavern near Lost Hope Inlet, and Dr. 
Gadow’s find of several skeletons of the Norway Lemming (Lemmus lemmus) 
near Athouguia in Portugal. 
Through the kindness of Dr. Gadow I was permitted to announce the dis- 
covery at the meeting of the Zoological Society of March 3, 1896 (see P. Z. S., 
March 6, 1896, pp. 304-306). The circumstances of the case are quite close 
to those attending the discovery of Veomylodon. In both cases the bones were 
discovered buried under the dust of a cave, in both cases they were surprisingly 
fresh (the Lemming remains were quite recent, having the skin and the liga- 
ments attached to them), and in both cases the remains found are those of an 
animal believed to have been long since extinct in the country where they 
were found. 
The present range of the Norway Lemming does not extend south of about 
58° 30’ north latitude, while even in Pleistocene times it had been previously 
unknown from any localities south of England, yet its remains as found in 
Portugal had the appearance of having belonged to quite recently dead animals. 
It would seem then that even in countries where the climate is damp, or 
certainly not dry, it is possible that, given the aid of a sheltering cave, and of 
abundance of dry dust, the remains of mammals, both small and large, may be 
preserved in quite a fresh state for long periods. 
G. E. H. Barrett-HAMILTon, 
KILMANOCK, ARTHURSTOWN, 
IRELAND. 
BIOLOGICAL ANALOGY AND SPEECH-DEVELOPMENT. 
As language (speech) is entirely a human invention—just as chess and 
piano-playing are—the science of language is not entitled to be classed as 
a natural science; so it is with much diffidence that I write to you on the 
subject. But as you published Mr. Henry Cecil Wyld’s paper on “ Biological 
Analogy and Speech-development” in your January (1899) Number, may I 
venture to point out to Mr. Wyld that in his criticism of the fallacy of 
Professor Paul’s reasoning he might possibly mislead as many readers as 
Professor Paul has. 
Mr. Wyld says (p. 48) that “the safest way to think of language is asa 
habit of body expressing a habit of mind.” 
The question naturally arises, “Is this a safe way to think of any human 
invention ?” 
462 
