| NATORE 
| THURSDAY, DECEMBER 31, 
1903- 
SIR H. JOHNSTON’S BRITISH MAMMALS. 
British Mammals; an Attempt to Describe and Illus- 
trate the Mammalian Fauna of the British Islands 
from the Commencement of the Pleistocene Period to 
the Present Day. By Sir H. Johnston. Woburn 
Library. Pp. xvi+4o5; illustrated. (London : 
Hutchinson and Co., 1903.) Price 12s. 6d. 
[ JNLIKE the birds, the mammals of our islands 
have not been ‘‘ written out,’’ and there was 
accordingly abundant room for a thoroughly up-to-date 
and trustworthy work on this section of the British 
fauna, which should record all that has been accom- 
plished in connection with the subject during the last 
ten years or so, and especially with regard to local») 
races, or subspecies, of well-known types. Whether 
the author has been successful in satisfactorily filling | 
the gap that lay before him it is our purpose to inquire. 
In the first place, it may be candidly admitted that 
in this handsome and strikingly illustrated addition 
to the ‘‘ Woburn Library ’’ the author has succeeded 
in producing an extremely interesting and attractive 
volume, as, indeed, from his well-known literary skill 
and experience it might haye been confidently pre- 
dicted that he would do. The selection of a writer 
of the type of Sir H. Johnston to undertake such an 
important and difficult task reflects, however, to a 
certain extent on the methods and ways of professed 
naturalists. Had one of the latter class been entrusted 
with the work, it is only too likely that he would have | 
produced a volume of the dry-as-dust style, wanting in 
literary skill and picturesqueness, and_ therefore 
practically unreadable by the general public. All such 
danger has been avoided by the selection of such a 
famous amateur as Sir H. Johnston, whose work is 
in many respects well suited to the needs of a popular 
clientele, although we think there is somewhat too 
much of such ‘blessed words’’ as “‘ alisphenoid 
canals,” “‘ entepicondylar foramina,” &c., the signifi- 
cance of which will scarcely be appreciated by the class 
of readers the author is likely to attract. 
As regards the general character and scope of his 
work, Sir Harry Johnston has made British mammals 
a peg on which to hang a long and somewhat dis- 
cursive account of mammals in general, and extinct 
ones in particular, and it must be confessed that on 
many occasions he gets decidedly far away from his 
preper subject. In this connection it may be noticed 
” 
that, although Sir Harry alludes to his work as a | 
compilation, from the absence of references to authori- 
ties (which is a conspicuous feature throughout the 
volume) it might easily be imagined by the uninitiated 
reader that many of the theories (often alluded to as 
though they were facts) were the author’s own, a case 
in point being the presumed African origin of certain 
‘elements in the South American fauna. 
For our own part, we confess that we do not like 
the plan of mixing” up the later extinct forms with 
those still living, as it tends to confusion -and to give 
an exaggerated idea of the extent of the British fauna, 
NOw!783,, VOL. 69] 
| reverse of this is the case. 
193 
which is now essentially of an island type. This, 
however, is purely a matter of opinion, and the 
author has a perfect right to follow his own inclin- 
ations in this respect. Even here, however, he makes 
a serious blunder at starting. For in the table of 
“epochs,’’ on p. 16, he includes the Pleistocene in the 
‘Tertiary ’’ instead of in the ‘‘ Quaternary.” 
Although confessedly an amateur, and to a great 
extent, therefore, unacquainted with the technique and 
details of his subject, Sir H. Johnston has apparently 
such overweening confidence in his own abilities and 
knowledge that he has scorned specialist aid in the 
revision of his proofs, which are consequently dis- 
figured by a host of blunders and omissions. That 
the study of British mammals has not been advanced 
by his labours is a mild way of putting the matter. 
It might be urged, indeed, that in a popular work this 
was not to be expected, and were it not for the 
ambitious and comprehensive style in which the task 
has been attempted, there might be some justification 
for this plea. As it is, there is none. 
To justify this indictment, we proceed to quote a 
selection from the errors and omissions. 
Firstly, as regards mammals in general, we notice 
on p. 19 that Platanistid dolphins are stated to occur 
only in the Amazon and Ganges. On p. 48 a vague 
theory of the use of the folds in the throat of the 
rorquals is alluded to in a foot-note, but no reference at 
all is made to the main use of these structures, namely, 
to form a dilatable pouch for the temporary recep- 
tion of prey. On p. 84 we find the term calcaneum 
employed instead of calcar for the supporting style 
in a bat’s flying membrane. Three pages earlier (p. 
81) we find it confidently stated that bats never produce 
| more than two young at a birth, whereas the occur- 
rence of three or four in an American family was 
announced early in 1902 by Mr. Thomas, and later on 
in the same year by Mr. Lyon. On p. 135 the 
astounding suggestion is made that the British fossil 
panda (4#lurus anglicus) may have been more nearly 
allied to Afluropus than to the members of the genus 
in which it is placed. Apparently the author has no 
conception of the differences between the molar teeth 
of the two genera. On p. 166 it is stated that hyzenas 
have only one pair.of lower premolars, while, on the 
next page, the lower carnassial tooth of the spotted 
hyena is said to be “‘ reduced in size’? as compared 
with that of the striped species, whereas precisely the 
These are not all the in- 
stances of the author’s lack of knowledge concerning 
mammalian dentition, for on p. 115 we find no refer- 
ence to the opinion that the functional dentition of 
marsupials represents the milk series, or to a paper 
published a few years ago in the Zoological Society’s 
Proceedings in which it was attempted to show that 
the number of premolars in the same group is four 
instead of three. We should also much like to know 
what authority there is for the statement (p. 353) that 
the Indian nilgai is the nearest living ally of the 
oxen. Even more astonishing is the assertion, on the 
next page, that the bisons take their origin from the 
Oriental bikovine group of cattle, as represented by 
the gaur and banting. Apparently the author is un- 
K 
