392 



NA rURE 



[Fed. 24, 1887 



and in neither case themselves entitled to be called protover- 

 tebrates, or else that the protovertebrates referred to were 

 ichthyopsida, that is to say, more simply, allied to the amphibia. 

 1 do not object to that letter supposition. I suggested it myself 

 in 1884 (Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, xviii. p. 356), 

 as perhaps Prof Parker is aware. But if birds are developed 

 from amphibians or pre-amphibians, and if Prof. Huxley is 

 right, as I believe he is, in supposing that the connection of 

 mammals with amphibians is neither through reptiles mr birds, 

 we come to this : that amphibians or pre-amphibians have fur- 

 nished the common stem whence reptiles, birds, and mammals 

 have diverged. In that case there is an end of that group, 

 " Sauropsida," which the birds are alleged by Prof. Parker to 

 "culminate." 



But, further, amphibians are certainly more closely allied to 

 reptiles than to either birds or mammals. Cuvier's system may 

 therefore be justly reverted to, and the Amphibia or Batrachia 

 !:ie considered as the lowest division of the Reptilia, which I do 

 not for one moment doubt is the true classification. 



University, Glasgow, February 8 John Cleland 



The West India 1 Seal (Monachus livpualis) 



It will probably be of interest to the zoological portion of 

 V our readers to learn of the re-discovery — or the fiUI discovery — 

 .if the West Indian seal (Monac/nis tropicalis). The history of 

 this pinniped is in brief as follows. 



It was first noticed by Columbus in his account of his secontl 

 voyage (1494) as having been found in .some numbers on the 

 locky isle of Alta Vela, off the southern shore of Hispaniola, 

 where his sailors killed eight of them for fjod. Later — in 1675 

 — Dampier found this seal in abundance on the Alacram reefs, 

 about 80 miles north of Yucatan. At that time it was killed 

 there in great numbers for its oil. 



The seal then remained unnoticed for over a century and a half, 

 having no place whatever in the writings of zoologists until 

 1843. Then Mr. Richard Hill published an account of it in the 

 " Jamaica Almanac, " calling it the Pedro seal, from the Pedro 

 Keys, some 60 miles south of Kingston, Jamaica, where he had 

 found it. A few years later Mr. P. H. Gosse obtained an 

 imperfect skin .(without skull) which he sent to the British 

 Museum, where it was described by Dr. Gray in the Proceed- 

 ings of the Zoological Society of London, 1S49. Dr. Gray 

 gave it then no name, probably by reason of its imperfect 

 characters. Later — in 1850 — (Catalogue of Mammals in the 

 British Museum) he described this same specimen as Phoca 

 tropicalis, and afterwards (Catalogue of Seals and Whales, 1S66) 

 as Monachiis tropicalis. But so imperfect was the specimen 

 on which the description w as founded, and the animal itself was 

 so little known, that even its generic relations were in doubt, and 

 its reference to the genus Monachus was considered provisional. 

 From thence on to the present, rumours of the existence of this 

 -eal have been not unfrequent, but nothing seemed trustworthy 

 and positive, and no specimens were obtained, if we except a 

 young skin, without bones or skull, which came from Cuba to the 

 National Museum at Washington, in 18S4, without any indica- 

 tion as to locality. 



It has long seemed to the writer — as, doubtless, to many others 

 — that the certain presence in our waters of so important a 

 mammal lying perdu in regions which our naturalist collectors 

 are yearly visiting, was the oppiobrium of American zoologists. 

 We made inquiries, and collected notes from many sources, 

 which showed clearly that this seal existed at isolated points 

 — on small islands and keys — not only in the Caribbean and 

 among the Bahamas, but also in the Gulf of Mexico. Last 

 summer, while on a visit to the western shore of the Gulf of 

 Mexico, we were so fortunate as to locate this seal with much 

 certainty. This was upon the Triangles (Los Triangulos), three 

 little keys, hardly above the water-level at high tide, and lying 

 some 100 miles north-west off the Campeachy coast, in latitude 

 N. 20° 50', and longitude W. 92" 10'. Following this clue, my 

 son, Mr. Henry L. Ward, last December visited the Triangles in 

 company and partnership with Senor F. Ferrari Perez, naturalist 

 of the Mexican Geographical and Exploring Expedition. His 

 hunt was highly successful, and he has during the present month 

 returned with nearly twenty specimens — skeletons and skins of 

 all ages, from a suckling to the fully adult male, 7 feet in length. 

 This ample material has just been carefully studied by Prof. 

 J. A. Allen, the well - known zoologist, and author of the 



" Monograph of North American Pinnipeds." Prof. 'Allen has 

 given a preliminary notice of the specimens in Science, January 

 14, 1887, and promises an elaborate account, with plates, in 

 an early issue of the Bulletin of the American Museum of 

 Natural History, New York. 



It is a fact of rather peculiar interest that this, the first large 

 mammal ever discovered in America, should, by the strange 

 mishaps of natural history collecting, be the very last one to 

 become known satisfactorily to science. Henry A. Ward 



Rochester, N.Y., January 30 



An Abnormal Hirudo inedicinalis 

 Whilst dissecting the leech in the class of practical zoology, 

 one of my students directed my attention to an apparent abnor- 

 mality in the specimen which it fell to his lot to dissect. On 

 careful examination it was found that the vesicula seminalis of 

 the right side had moved fornards into the fifth somite, and 

 there opened into the base of a second and fully-developed 

 penis, which opened to the exterior on the second anniilus of 

 the fifth somite. From the vas deferens, however, there passed 

 off to the normal penis a duct which had on it a swelling corre- 

 sponding in position to the vesicula seminalis, which had been 

 moved forwards. The various parts on the left side, as well as 

 the female organs, were quite normal. 



R. J. Harvey Gibson 

 Biological Laboratory, University College, Liverpool, 

 February 14 



Instinctive Action 



Some years ago I was about to drown a terrier pup of about a 

 month old. I held it across the palm of my open hand over a 

 large tub of water. It lay quite still on my hand as I gently 

 lowered it. When within 4 inches of the surface, but not yet 

 touching the water, it deliberately began, and continued as long 

 as I held it there, the paddling motion with its feet peculiar to 

 dogs when swimming, and quite unlike that of walking, although 

 I am perfectly certain this puppy had never seen or touched 

 water before. We know almost all animals swim when first 

 placed in water, but how could this puppy know before it touched 

 the water that this peculiar action would be necessary? Has a 

 similar case been observed by any of your readers ? 



Birmingham, February 17 ^-*' ^- '-'■ 



THE RELATIONS BETWEEN GEOLOGY AND 



THE MINERALOGICAL SCIENCES^ 



I. 



THE realm of Nature has been recognised from time 

 immemorial as consisting of three kingdoms : deal- 

 ing with the affairs of these three kingdoms, respectively, 

 there have grown up side by side three departments of 

 natural knowledge — zoology, botany, and mineralogy. 

 But in recent years new and, I cannot help thinking, 

 regrettable relations have sprung up between these sister 

 sciences. Zoology and botany, having developed a method, 

 a classification, and a nomenclature, based on common 

 principles, have been drawn together by bonds so close 

 and firm that many regard them as indissolubly one -the 

 science of biology. Mineralogy, thus isolated, has been 

 driven to seek new and unnatural alliances — with chem- 

 istry, with physics, or with the mathematical sciences. 

 For my own part I confess that I regard this threatened 

 " Repeal of the Union " of the natural sciences as alike a 

 misfortune and a mistake. 



It is sometimes assumed that the objects dealt with by 

 zoology and botany are so different in their essential 

 characters from those treated of by mineralogy, that the 

 science of " organic " Nature must always follow a different 

 path from that pursued by the science of '' inorganic " 

 Nature. The structures commonly known as organic, and 

 the processes usually called vital, are asserted to be so 

 entirely different, alike in their origin and in their essence, 



I Addj-iM to the Geological Society at the Anniversary Meeting on 

 February 18, by the President, Prof. John W. Judd, F.R.S, 



