Aug. 21, 1873] 
excite his curiosity. In considering the fact that the Cat- 
bird (A/imus carolinensis) has a strongly marked anti- 
pathy against the animal whose name it bears, he says, 
“TJ have often wondered if this inherited distrust of the 
cat could be explained in any way with reference to the 
imitative peculiarities of the bird. In other words, is it 
possible that some ancestor began to mew like a cat 
whenever it saw the wild cat in his haunts, and that in 
process of time it came to be an established habit ?” Again, 
the answer given to the question, why such migratory 
birds as the ruby-throated Hummer (Zvochilus colubris) 
are not content with the eternal summer of the south? is 
equally inconclusive: “ All that we can say is that some 
inherited instinct is at work, perhaps to them as precious 
as is the longing for the holidays to the schoolboy, full of 
pleasant reminiscences, which of course would grow by 
experience.” And we do not feel any nearer the truth as 
to the reason why the peculiarity of the beak of the Cross- 
bill is so well marked, when we know that in the bird’s 
attempts to extract the seeds from the red spruce and 
other cones, “the bill, which is not so strong and conica] 
as that of the pine bullfinch, became curved, until at 
length the condition became hereditary and trans- 
missible.” 
An interesting remark is made, which illustrates how 
very susceptible the animal body is to the influence of 
slowly-acting external circumstances, For it is the popu- 
lar belief in New Brunswick that the severity of an 
ensuing winter may be predicted by the amount of fat 
present on the intestines and omenta of animals, whether 
wild or domesticated ; and as the coldness of the winter 
must depend on the previous climatic condition, that may 
reasonably be supposed to affect the constitution in a 
manner favourable to the individual. 
In conclusion, we think that both sportsmen and natu- 
ralists will find this work replete with anecdote and care- 
fully recorded observation, which will entertain them; at 
the same time they will not put down the book without 
feeling that they have acquired much new information on 
the physical geography and natural history of New 
Brunswick. 
“HISTORY CF PHYSICS AND 
CHEMISTRY ’ 
HOEFER’S 
Histoire dela Physique et de la Chimie. Par Ferdinand 
Hoefer. (Paris: Hachette, 1872.) 
ORE than twenty years ago M. Hoefer published a 
4 History of Chemistry, the first which had ap- 
peared since the publication of Dr. Thomas Thomson’s 
History. M. Hoefer has since been known to us as the 
author of the biographies of various scientific men in the 
Nouvelle Biographie Générale, and of a small work en- 
titled La chimie enseignée par la biographie de ses Fonda- 
teurs. The volume before us is one of a series which 
treats of universal history, and is published under the 
direction of M. V. Duruy. The works which it comprises 
are intended to be used in colleges and schools, and M. 
Hoefer’s volume has no doubt been included, because the 
promoters of the serics have wisely considered that the 
listory of matter, and of motion, are as worthy the atten- 
NATURE 
"gar 
tion of the rising generation as the history of languages 
numbers, peoples, faiths. 
Out of the 553 pages which the work contains, no less 
than 314 are devoted to the history of Physics, while the 
remainder contain in a condensed form the substance of 
M. Hoefer’s larger Histoire de la Chimie, The History 
of Physics is divided into two books, entitled respectively 
“Matter” and “ Motion,” the former including—1. The 
immediate properties of matter (weight, volume, density, 
elasticity, compressibility) ; 2. The terrestrial atmosphere ; 
3. Liquefaction and solidification of gases; 4. Hygro- 
metry ; 5. Acoustics. 
The second book on Motion includes—tr. Gravity ; 2, 
Heat ; 3. Light ; 4 Electricity and Magnetism. 
We feel bound to take exception to this arrangement, 
which is both immature and ill-considered. For why has 
M. Hoefer classed weight with matter, and gravity with 
motion ? and why liquefaction and solidification of gases 
with szatder, when they are operations distinctly connected 
with motion? But, worse than all, why has he classed 
acoustics with matter? Again, he has omitted all men- 
tion of certain sciences which were among the earliest—- 
Statics, Dynamics, Hydrostatics, Hydrodynamics. These 
sciences, from their antiquity, lend themselves with great 
facility to the apt illustration of the various phases of the 
history of science. Archimedes has received an alto- 
gether insufficient amount of notice: we may not forget 
that several of our sciences actually owe their origin to 
him; and how M. Hoefer, with Peynard’s fine edition 
of the works of Archimedes in his own language, can have 
overlooked him, we are quite at a loss to understand 
Then the Archimedian screw, the pumps of Ctesibius, the 
Avvawers of Hero of Alexandria, should all have full men- 
tion in the work. And if it be urged that space did not 
permit mention of these things, we would reply that 
they are of far more importance than Hygrometry, which 
finds mention in the book. Also such sections as “ Pése- 
liqueur d’Hypatie,” “ Manométre,” “ Hygrométre con- 
denseur,” “ Porte-voix,” “‘ Clavecin et carillon electrique,” 
“La beatification de Bose,” might all have been replaced 
with advantage by more important matters. 
We notice with regret a tendency to attribute dis- 
coveries to men who were not first in the field. Thus, 
although Boyle discovered his law of the compression of 
gases, no less than fourteen years before Mariotte, it is 
called Lot de Mariotle. Again, M. Hoefer says, “ Gas 
sendi parait s’étre le premier occupé de la question de la 
vitesse du son, sans préciser les résultats auxquels il était 
parvenu.” But if M. Hoefer will read Lord Bacon’s 
Historia Soni et Auditus, he will finda good deal of 
valuable and suggestive matter, among other things, a 
suggestion for determining the velocity of sound. 
Let us iurn to the comprehensive little treatise on the 
history of chemistry, beginning with Herme: Trisme- 
gistus, nay, with Moses, and endiag with Wurtz, William- 
son, Frankland, and Kolbe. This part of the work, as 
derived from M. Hoefer’s larger treatise, is altogether 
more matured than the preceding; yet it is not without 
evidence of hasty selection and ill-considered statements. 
We cannot agree with M. Hoefer when he tells us that 
the word chemistry was used in the fourth century, and 
that we are to trace it to yvikoyand y/o. Neither, for 
various reasons, which we have stated elsewhere, can we 
