222 
NATURE 
[Fudy 17, 1873 
homology of the zradecule cranii, most of what is stated 
in this chapter is well enough established to form part of 
a manual for students of comparative anatomy. 
But who are these students? Noone could follow the 
closely printed pages of description here given, without a 
good general acquaintance with human anatomy and a 
thorough knowledge of the human skeleton, For this 
reason we think it would have been better to have cur- 
tailed or even omitted the preliminary accounts of each 
organ in man, because they are not sufficient alone, and 
there are many excellent treatises on this subject already. 
If it is answered that the book is really intended for boys 
and girls at school, then the details given, especially in 
osteology, are far too numerous: in fact they would be 
unintelligible without a good museum, and learning 
zygosphenes and hypapophyses without seeing them is far 
worse mental training than Barbara Celarent, or the 
verbs in -y. For the second class of readers mentioned 
in the preface, teachers, medical students, and others 
acquainted with human anatomy, this little treatise will 
be found just what they want in order to learn “its more 
significant relations to the structure of other animals.” 
The only defect they will find is the omission of the 
organs of reproduction and the structure of the ovum. 
The woodcuts are generally sufficient, and some of the 
diagrams are remarkably ingenious and useful. Some 
are, however, much too small, ¢.g, the diagram of the 
skull, Fig. 197, and all the figures of entire skeletons, as 
200; while others, as 137, representing the shoulder- 
girdle of Hemidactylus, after Parker, greatly need the 
shading and tinting of the original drawing. The plan 
of repeating an illustration whenever it is referred to is 
not often adopted in English books, but on the whole it 
is, we think, the most convenient. 
Experience will show what class of students will 
really make most use of Mr. Mivart’s Lessons. We 
heartily recommead them to all medical students and 
zoologists who have access to a good museum. anos 
OUR BOOK SHELF 
Die Robbe und die Otter (Phoca vitulina ef Lutra vul- 
garis) in Ihrem Kunochen-und Muskel-skelet, Eine 
anatomisch-zoologicgische Studie von Dr. J. C. G. 
Lucae. 102 pp. 15 plates, (Frankfort-on-the-Main, 
1873.) 
UNDER this title the distinguished anatomist, Prof. Lucae, 
has contributed to the ‘Transactions of the Sencken- 
bergian Society of Naturalists,” an elaborate treatise upon 
the anatomy of the Common Seal (Phoca vitulina). The 
osteology of Phoca is minutely described, and every part of 
its skeleton compared with the corresponding portions of 
that of the Otter—one of its nearest allies among the 
terrestrial Carnivora. Comparisons with other mammals 
are also given. 
Fifteen well-executed plates illustrate this excellent 
memoir, which, when completed (the first part being only 
now before us) will leave little to be added to our infor- 
mation as to the osteology of the true Seals (Phocide.) 
To our knowledge of the structure of the two other 
families of the marine Carnivora (the Trichecide and 
Otariidze) we have lately received a valuable contribution 
in the shape of Dr. Murie’s Memoirs on the Walrus and 
Sea-lion, published in the Zoological Society’s « Trans- 
actions,” so that great progress has lately been made 
towards a perfect understanding of the osseous structure 
of the marine Carnivora, 
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 
[The Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinicns expressed 
by his correspondengs. No notice is taken of anonymous 
communications. } 
Agassiz and Forbes 
Mr. GeorGe Forres has, in NAQORE of May 22, given his 
version of the controversy between Agassiz and Forbes. I had 
no intention, in a former note, of reviving, for the benefit of the 
readers of NATURE, this unpleasant subject ; but simply wished 
to protest against the ex cathedra statements of the reviewer of 
Tyndall. The materials for an impartial discussion of the 
history of glacier work are accessible to all investigators, and 
when it comes to bz written, Azassiz and Forbes will obtain due 
credit for their share of the work. One of the points at issue 
between Forbes and Agassiz is not a matter ‘‘of facts to be 
proved or disproved by facts.” The conversation between 
Agassiz and Forbes (Heath as witness for Forbes) held on the 
first day of their sojoura on the Aar Glacie*, refers simply to a 
difference of opinion on the explanation of certain bands (observed 
previously by several persons, and well known to Agassiz). The 
nature of these bands has to this day remained problematical. 
and why Agassiz, when writing to Humboldt that Ze had ob- 
served these bands at a depth of 120 ft. in the body of the glacier, 
shoul1 give any credit to Forbes passes all understanding. This 
observation was made after Forbes’s departure, and Agassiz cer- 
tainly needed no ‘‘ reconcilia'ion with his conscience ” to describe 
this as ‘‘le fait le plus nouveau que7’aé observé.” The testimony of 
Mr. Heath is of no valu, for it certainly would be the height of 
presumption, in a man without any previous acqnaintance with 
glaciers, to undertake to decide in a few lines, a point to this day 
a subject of controversy among investigators of glaciers ; his 
endorsement of the claims of Forbes is as ridiculous as the 
attempt male by a prominent Swiss geologist (who gives his 
testimony in favour of Forbes), to ign re the claims of Agassiz, 
by passing his name over in silence when writiag the history of 
geological science in Switzerland, 
I would also remind Mr. George Forbes and the editors of 
the ‘Life and Letters of Forbes,” that Agassiz’s affirmation 
carries as geeat weight as that of Forbes or Mr. Heath. Forbes 
is entitled to whatever credit there is in his explanation of these 
bands and no more, an explanation which has not been 
adopted by Agassiz for the very good reason that he did not 
deem it a satisfactory one, and did not attach to it the same 
importanc: which Forbes did. Agassiz expsessed to Forbes 
considerable surprise at the appearance of the bands which 
presented that morning peculiar conditions, not usually seen 
except afler a hard rain, and on the strength of this surprise 
Forbes lays claim to the discovery of the bands, and boldly 
accuses Agassiz of knowing nothing about them at the time of 
his visit. In investigations carried on for several years, as those 
of the glacier of the Aar under Agassiz, it was most natural that 
special points should not always be uppermost in the mind of the 
investigator, however interesting they might appear to a visitor ; 
this will fully account for any want of interest shown by Agassi 
on first meeting Forbes and discussing the veined structu ce of the 
ice. 
Agassiz certainly owed nothing to Forbes, who was an invited 
guest on the glacier of the Aar, a novice in glacial work. No 
attack was made upon Forbes, as is stated by Mr. George 
Forbes ; it originated with him. Ina letter addressed to Forbes 
by Agassiz when he first discovered that Forbes had published, 
independently as his own, observations made upon the glacier 
of the Aar, during his stay with the Swiss party, he says: ‘‘the 
idea that in thought you conceived the project of an independent 
publication did not come to me for an instant. I should have 
thought I did you injustice by such a supposition.” Agassiz felt 
he ‘had been deeply wronged” by the course taken by Forbes ; 
he made no answer to Forbes, and paid no further attention 
to the subject, not because there was ‘‘no room for discus- 
sion,” but because the toneadopted by Forbes was so insulting and 
overbearing as to render all further discussion impossible with- 
out its degenerating into the personalities afterwards indulged 
in by Forbes, in his letters to his friends, which the editors of 
hi; Life and Letters have taken special pleasure in reproducing. 
Forbes did not hesitate to bring Mr. Heath uninvited to the 
glacier of the Aar, probably to act as his witness and swel 
the party, yet both he and his son regard the presence o 
friends of Agassiz, to assist him in his work, a most monstrous 
circumstance, Pioneers usually find it difficult to explore the 
