178 Mr. W. G. Carter on the Gopher- wood 



or perhaps more particularly of Lower Egypt, the place of its 

 residence and ravages. 



It is, however, necessary to observe that the insect to which 

 modern entomologists have given the name oi CEstrus, is totally 

 different from the fly which Aristotle distinguished by that 

 name. The modern CEstrus shuns the water, it is no blood- 

 sucker, has no proboscis, and scarcely any mouth, and in fly- 

 ing makes no noise; while the CEstrus of the Greeks possesses 

 many of the specific characters and habits which Bruce 

 ascribes to the Zimb. 



These considerations are submitted to the attention of na- 

 turalists with hesitation and doubt. But having had the good 

 fortune of directing the studies of one of the gentlemen whom 

 the Pacha of Egypt has sent to this country to be educated, 

 the writer hopes soon by his means to obtain specimens 

 which will enable naturalists to clear up this interesting and 

 doubtful point. 



XXXII. On the Gopher- wood of the received Version of the 

 Scriptures. By W. G. Carter, Esq. 



To the Editors of the Philosophical Magazine and Journal. 



Gentlemen, 



TN a letter from Mr. Beke in your Number for August last, 



on a paper by Mr. Drummond Hay on certain Plants of 



Marocco, and the Cedar of the Ancients, it is said that the 



word *"l£3J [Gopher), used to express the wood of which the 



Ark of Noah was built, is probably the same as *"i£) j ; that 



Kopher means pitch, and that the tree in question would 

 therefore appear to be a pitch tree. 



This change has, I believe, never been before suggested, 

 but the change of letters of the same organ is common in 

 Hebrew as in other tongues. That it has been made in the 

 particular instance seems highly probable, and the coi'rection 

 very admissible. Admitting, then, that Gopher is identical 

 with Kopher, I still think it is very questionable that Kopher 

 means pitch, and atzei Kopher, pitch trees, for the following 

 considerations. 



Though the word is of very frequent use in the Hebrew 

 Scriptures in the sense of cover over, atone for, expiate, and 

 is the word constantly employed, particularly in the Penta- 

 teuch, to express that meaning, not one passage, I believe, 

 can be found in which it has the former import. The nearest 

 to it, and the only one I can find having the like sense, is 

 Isaiah xxviii. 18. " Your covenant with death shall be disan- 

 nulled :" and there we need not infer the meaning of can- 



