1874.] Notices of Books. 249 
subject differs somewhat from that which is commonly adopted. 
Instead of at first presenting a general view of the animal 
kingdom, and its greater divisions into sub-kingdoms, Dr. 
Nicholson at once describes the individual types representative 
of the smaller sub-divisions or classes, commencing with the 
Aniseba as typical of the class Rhizopoda, and so on up to the 
dog as the representative of the Mammalia. The sub-kingdoms 
are afterwards described in the concluding chapter. The types 
are well-selected, and their characteristic features plainly de- 
scribed, though, of course, only in outline, the reproductive 
organs and the more minute details of internal structure not 
being described, the attention of the pupil being directed to the 
conspicuous points of structure, more especially to those which 
are external. 
It is doubtless more in accordance with strict philosophy to 
take details first, and then to pass from them to the broader 
generalisation ; but, in teaching, this method is attended with 
some disadvantages. We think that, on the whole, it would 
have been better in a work of this kind to have commenced at 
first with an outline of the most general kind, and then to have 
filled it up with the matter which forms the bulk of this little 
work. The relations of the different classes to each other would 
have been better understood after the pupil had been made 
acquainted with the general characteristics and the broader dis- 
tinctions between the sub-kingdoms. As it stands, the step by 
which he is carried from the Cephalopoda to the fishes is made 
no broader than that by which he passes from the Crustacea to 
the Arachnida. Ina work of this kind, the greatest difficulty is 
to determine what should be omitted ; and opinions must neces- 
sarily vary rather widely on this point. As an expression of our 
own opinion, we think that Dr. Nicholson might advantageously 
have told the school-boy and girl just a little about the prede- 
cessors of the present generations of animal life; for instance, 
when he tells them of the rarity of the Brachiopoda, and his 
reasons for selecting an Australian representative of this group, 
he might have referred to the comparative abundance of their 
fossil remains. Thus some of the ancient links between the 
fishes, reptiles, and birds might have been described just suff- 
ciently to awaken the curiosity of the pupil and indicate the 
bearings of his present study upon that of the ancient history of 
our globe. 
We are rather inclined to quarrel with the title of the book, as 
it sanctions and maintains the very narrow, popular fallacy of 
regarding zoology as the whole of natural history. ‘‘ Outlines 
ey” would have been a sounder and more expressive 
mule, ° 
