February 10, 1883.] 



SCIENCE. 



41 



tracts from Fiscker, finds no place in it, 

 thougii here and there an isolated fact is 

 planted side hy side with some crnde observa- 

 tion of the first quarter of this centur_y. Iher- 

 ing's classification, the most pregnant and 

 suggestive (if not the most successful) at- 

 tempt iu manj' years, is not even mentioned. 

 There is shown no grasp of the subject ; and, 

 on coutested questions of importance, the 

 treatment recalls a man in a menagerie poking 

 up the animals through the bars. Errors of 

 fact and of the tj'pes could be cited in abun- 

 dance : but it is not necessary- to descend to 

 small details ; the real fault is with the archi- 

 tecture, not with the bricks. 



THE PARIS METEORITES. 



Guide dans la collection de meteorite!: du Museum 

 d'histoire naturelle. Paris, Masson. 1882. 40 p. 8°. 

 This little work of some forty pages is val- 

 uable as giving in brief the results of the ex- 

 tended s'tudies upon meteorites hj Prof. A. 

 Daubr^e and his assistant Dr. Stanislas Meu- 

 nier. Besides furnishing a catalogue of all the 

 specimens to be found in the collection, three 

 hundred and sis in number, it discusses the 

 origin, characters, classification, etc., of mete- 

 orites. These are regarded as having a com- 

 mon origin, and possessing types corresponding 

 to rocks and structures of terrestrial origin, 

 i.e., to lavas, dunite, Iherzolite, serpentine, 

 breccias, pumice, metallic veins, metamorphic 

 rocks, etc. The classification is one which, in 

 its simpler divisions, has been well received, 

 but in the minor subdivisions is but little 

 known ; hence it is a matter of interest to 

 place this classification in its latest phase be- 

 fore our readers. 



METEORITE. 



I. HOLOSIDEBITE. 



Octibbeliite, tazewellite, nelsonite, catarinite, 

 braunite, caillite, schwetzite, iewellite, camp- 

 beUite, burlingtonite, tuczonite, lenartite. 



II. Syssidbrite. 



;. Pallasite, atacamaite, brahinite, deesite, lodranite. 



III. Spobasideeite. 



1. Polysiderite. — Toulite, logronite. 



2. Oligosiderite. — Aumalite, chantonnite, aiglite, 

 montrejite, parnallite, hiceite, canellite, mesmi- 

 nite, belajite, butsurite, maiibboomite, banjite, 

 limerickite, menite, bustite, richmoudite, tiescli- 

 ite, erxlebenite, quincite, stawropolite, tadjer- 

 ite, riitlamite, renazzite. 



3. Cryptosiderite. — Howardite, ornansite, chlad- 

 nite. 



IV. ASIDEKITB. 



Igastite, rodite, eukrite, shalkite, chassiguite, bok- 

 kevelite, orgueillite. 



The principal divisions, as will be readilj' 

 seen, are based on the presence or absence of 

 iron, and its relations to the associated sili- 



cates when they are present. The subdivisions 

 ^re named from the localities at which the 

 specimen chosen as a type happened to fall. 

 It is unfortunate that the bibliographical in- 

 dex, professing to give the principal works 

 relating to meteorites, should be so very im- 

 perfect, — giving only eight works and papers, 

 omitting such as the classical publications of 

 Chladni in 1819, Schreibers, and Partsch, and 

 the more recent ones of G. Rose, Shepard, 

 Clark, Harris, Rammelsberg, Kesselmej-er, 

 Phipson, Lawrence Smith, and others. 



EARLY ORIENTAL HISTORY. 



Histoire des anciens peuples de V orient; par Louis 

 Menard. Paris, 1882. 468 p. 8°. 

 This work contains the outlines of Egj'ptian, 

 of Assyrio-Babyloniau, and of Israelitish his- 

 tory-. Parts i. and ii. are profusel}' illustrated 

 from the monuments. Part ii. (Assyria and 

 Babylonia) covers 102 pages, and discusses in 

 five chapters the region of tha Tigris and Eu- 

 phrates, the primitive times, the Sargonidae, 

 the new Chaldean empire, the monuments, re- 

 ligion, manners, and customs. The author 

 tells in a pleasing waj' what he knows of these 

 topics ; but, unfortunately, be is not a student 

 of Assyriology, nor has he informed himself 

 as to the latest results of Assyrian study. 

 His authorities are the Old Testament, Be- 

 rosus, and the classic writers and the older 

 generation of explorers and decipherers (Botta, 

 Layard, Rawlinson, Hincks). Of the younger 

 generation, with one or two exceptions, he 

 knows absolutelj' nothing (Smith and Sayce 

 in England ; Hal^vj', Pognon, and Guyard in 

 France ; Schrader, Delitzsch, and others in 

 Germanj'). Hence he quotes (p. 261) from 

 Berosus the Chaldean legend of the deluge, 

 and points out its similaritj- to the biblical ac- 

 count, without even mentioning the cuneiform 

 deluge storj^ discovered bj' the lamented 

 George Smith. On p. 262 he tells us that the 

 name ' Babj-lon ' seems to mean ' gate of 

 god.' Certainly this meaning is above pos- 

 sible doubt. He informs us (pp. 262, 263) 

 that the people of Accad and Sumer are of 

 different race ; the former being Cushites, and 

 speaking a language approaching the Semitic 

 tongue, the latter being of the Scytliic or Tura- 

 nian stock. He has evidently uever heard of 

 Paul Haupt, who has shown that the peoples of 

 Sumer aud Accad spoke the §ame language with 

 dialectical differences, — a language utterly' un- 

 like an^- Semitic tongue. He says (p. 273) that 

 1112 B.C. is the oldest date which can be es- 

 tablished for the historj- of Assyria. He should 



