The Zoologist— Febkuary, 1869. 1553 



are of rare excellence ; and I very sincerely congratulate the publishers 

 on having produced a book which, even in these days of book-luxury, 

 is more than commonly attractive. 



I am quite unacquainted with the original work of which this is the 

 translation, but the author or translator — for, like the Siamese twins, 

 they are not safely separable — seems to entertain some novel views. 

 In one instance, however, the translator gives French and English side 

 by side : this occurs in a learned dissertation, at p. 224, on the struc- 

 ture of the wing of the pterodactyle, in which we find that " it has 

 been named 'pterodactylus' because the fifth toe of its anterior limbs 

 was enormously prolonged, and evidently intended to support a mem- 

 brane forming a wing as powerful as that of the great tomtits." I admit 

 that my Zoology entirely failed me in any attempt to understand this 

 recondite passage until I found, by the translator's kind assistance, 

 that the word translated "tomtits" stood in the original " roussettes," 

 by which Cuvier designated those frugivorous bats, some of which are 

 a constant source of attraction at the Zoological Gardens. This 

 doubtless is one of "the results of the most recent scientific research" 

 on which the author seems to plume himself. 



Such changes of name are of constant occurrence. At p. 323 the 

 saw-fish {Squalus pristis ov Pristis aniiquorum) is called the "common 

 sword-fish {Xiphias gladius):" at page 326, the red fire-fish {Pterois 

 voliians) is called "the flying-fish {Exoccetus volitans):'' at page 333, 

 the purple- finned sailor-fish {Histiophorus wimactilatus) is called 

 "the flying-fish of the Indies," and on the same page the name 

 " sword-fish " is restored to Xiphias gladius ; so that it is evident that 

 our learned authors consider the stvord-&sh and saw-&sh identical, the 

 slight diff'erence in the structure of beak and tail not being held suffi- 

 cient to distinguish them as varieties. In like manner, at p. 382, the 

 puffin [Frutercula arctica), the great auk {Alca impennis), and the 

 razorbill [Alca torda) are reduced to a single species, which the author 

 names "the penguin [Spheniscus aptenodytes);'" and here another 

 great feature in the work is worthy of attentive observation ; in uniting 

 these species so dissimilar we have the strongest evidence yet adduced 

 in favour of that melamorphotic doctrine usually called Darwinianism. 

 But to proceed, at p. 384 we have an excellent figure of the king 

 penguin {Aptenodytes Pemiantii), called "the great auk [Alca im- 

 pennis);' but I am rather puzzled to find, on the following page (385), 

 the same bird called the " booby gannet.'* I have adopted both names, 

 and in my English Cuvier, have altered the king penguin thus—" Great 



SECOXD SERIES — VOL. rv'. K 



