130 Notes and Comments. 
exceptional interest are included, whilst the fossils from the 
Corallian and other local deposits are known throughout the 
country for their excellence. It is sincerely to be hoped that 
Malton will be able to provide a suitable set of rooms—worthy 
of the collection—and thus enable the town to possess a local 
museum of great educational value. 
AND ITS HISTORY. 
At this meeting, Mr. M. B. Slater, who has done so much 
amongst the Yorkshire Mosses, gave an account of the history 
of the society. ‘The commencement of the society,’ said Mr. 
Slater, ‘was immediately after a meeting of the Yorkshire 
Naturalists’ Union, which was held at Malton in 1883. The 
late Prof. W. C. Williamson, then the President of the Union, 
was in the chair, and there was a good attendance of Malton 
people present.’ Many of these were induced to take an interest 
in natural history, the local society was formed, and grew, and 
even at the present time has a balance in hand, although last 
year’s subscriptions have not been collected ! 
MAMMAL v. ANIMAL. 
Mr. E. Kay Robinson, having referred to ‘Birds and Animals’ 
when he should have said ‘ Birds and Mammals,’ and having 
been corrected by a number of readers of Zhe Country Side, 
seeks to justify his action in a recent issue of that journal. His 
substitution of the word ‘animal’ for mammal was the result 
of what he hopes will be Azs ‘ final decision’ of a ‘ very trouble- 
some question.’ ‘In ordinary conversation,’ Mr. Robinson adds, 
‘we think of an animal as a hairy, hot-blooded creature with 
four limbs.’ And in ‘ordinary conversation,’ too, a whale 
would be looked upon as a fish, we suppose. But this ‘ ordi- 
nary conversation’ is incorrect, and just as inaccurate as it 
would be in ordinary conversation to refer to, say Mr. Robinson, 
as a raving maniac; nothing could be further from the truth. 
Why, therefore, in a professedly popular journal, endeavour to 
perpetuate an error? Mr. Robinson admits that, e¢ymologically 
speaking, ‘mammals’ is the correct word. Reference is made 
to the ‘scientists’ who strive to force upon us their strict dis- 
tinction between mammal and animal, and we learn that ‘there 
is no sufficient excuse for the zzvention of such a word as 
‘mammal’ to replace the popular word animal. He has 
watched, with sympathy, the attempts of scientific writers to 
popularise the word mammal, but in his opinion they have 
Naturalist, 
