,3„. NOTES AND COMMENTS. 649 



interest in the results of scientific research, but on account of the 

 misplaced sentiment of a certain band of agitators termed the Anti- 

 Vivisectionists. The British newspapers during the last month have 

 devoted much space to the questions raised by these agitators, in 

 reference to a discussion inaugurated by Sir Andrew Clark and Pro- 

 fessor Victor Horsley at the recent meeting of the Church Congress. 

 The result, however, is far from edifying, both parties displaying an 

 animosity that is to be regretted in such a discussion ; and sucJi 

 heated controversy will doubtless continue so long as the Anti-Vivi- 

 sectionists rouse the ire of the Physiologists, not merely by their dis- 

 play of ignorance of the subject in dispute, but also by their tissue of 

 mis-statements and misqviotations. 



It appears that Sir Andrew Clark and Sir James Paget are too 

 busy to enter into a public correspondence as to whether vivisection 

 has ever done any good to anybody. Certain daily papers seem to 

 regard this as a surprising confession of the weakness of the case for 

 vivisection. The writers seem quite unable to realise the medical 

 view of such a request ; they might have understood the preposterous 

 nature of the challenge if the President of the Geological Society and 

 the Director-General of the Geological Survey had been asked to 

 show that the use of the hammer had ever furthered geological 

 science, or if the Presidents of the Institute of Journalists and 

 Incorporated Society of Authors had been invited to discuss whether 

 the world owed anything to the use of the pen. How do these 

 journalists imagine the Church Congress would receive an invitation 

 to consider whether even the slightest good had ever been wrought 

 by prayer V:)Ooks ? Besides, the discussion of medical details in the 

 columns of the public press would be dangerous ; for what with the 

 British Matron and the County Council, the medical contributors to 

 the controversy would certainly get into serious trouble. 



Phenology. 



Quite apart from the researches conducted in Biological Stations 

 and Laboratories, however, there is much to be done by the ordinary 

 field observer in Natural History, and we note with pleasure another 

 recent effort to systematise some of the researches of local workers. 

 In the Midland Naturalist for October, Mr. F. A. Bellamy seeks 

 to enlist the aid of observers in the " science of appearances," or more 

 properly speaking, in the record of the first appearance each year of 

 certain wild flowers, birds, and insects. The object is to study the 

 relations between Natural History and Meteorology, on a plan 

 suggested as long ago as 1875 by the Royal Meteorological Society. 

 This plan, which has been revised from time to time, has been carried 

 on to some extent, but other students are needed who will make 

 observations in accordance with the instructions issued by the 

 Meteorological Society. 



