October 14, 1892.] 



SCIENCE. 



:the grasshopper's bead, and the singular state to which the grass- 

 hopper was reduced, all seemed to me worthy of notice. 



Evidently the grasshopper was carried off to serve for the food 

 of the young larva, instead of the caterpillar usually provided. 

 Had the grasshopper been paralyzed by a sting or bite ? Was it 

 mesmerized or hypnotized by its vigorous little enemy ? What- 

 ever had been done to it, it was absolutely quiescent and making 

 no manner of fight for itself. Julia McNair Wright. 



Fulton, Missouri. 



Auroras versus Thunder-Storms. 

 DUKING September just past sun-spots were very numerous and 

 large. Nevertheless, auroras during the month were without 

 •exception comparatively inconspicuous. In this case certainly 

 large sun-spots have not been attended by bright auroras, as some 

 have held to be the rule. The explanation of this anomaly, which 

 appears to be justified by systematic records in my possession, is 

 that thunder storms took the place of auroras. It has been found 

 .that not unfrequently thunder-storms become widely prevalent 

 upon dates upon which auroras should fall in accordance with 

 their periodicity corresponding to the time of a synodic revolution 

 of the sun. When this happens, it robs them of their brightness, 

 wholly or in part. The relation between these two classes of 

 phenomena appears to be reciprocal or substitutive, the one taking 

 the place of the other under conditions which are only just be- 

 ginning to be understood, and which are in process of investiga- 

 tion. M. A. Veeder. 



Lyons, N.Y., Oct. 8. 



European Origin of the Aryans. 



In reference to Dr. Brinton's note in Science, Sept. 16, I cer- 

 tainly have not read all D'Halloy's writings, which seem to me to 

 have no present scientific value, possessing merely a faint his- 

 torical interest. I only professed to have read those passages 

 which Dr. Brinton cited in his lectures. 



The extract which Dr. Brinton now gives from the article of 

 1848 only confirms me in my conclusions. D'Halloy's mention 

 of an Himalayan origin, and his allusion to the hypothesis that 

 the Indo-Germanic languages were derived from Sanscrit, point 

 lather to an acquaintance with Adelung's Cashmere theory of 

 1806 than to any adequate knowledge of the Cen'ral-Asian 

 hypothesis of Pott, Lassen, and Grimm, which dates from 1847-48. 

 At the time when D'Halloy, in his "Elements d'Ethnographie," 

 appended a note to this article, he must have heard of the Cen- 

 tral-Asian theory; but the "Elements d'Ethnographie"' I had 

 not looked at, as it was not one of the works cited by Dr. Brin- 

 ton. 



However, the matter is so unimportant that if Dr. Brinton still 

 wishes to maintain his view, we may agree to differ. 



Isaac Taylor. 



Settrlngton, York, England, Sept. 89. 



Change of Diet in Birds. 



Everyone who has a garden must have noticed the manner in 

 which the common sparrow destroys the flowers of the yellow 

 <3rocu3. The earliest mention of this which I can find is in Science 

 •Gossip for 1865. The question is. Was the bird previously in the 

 habit of thus destroying crocus flowers, — I do not say eating, — 

 or is it a new departure ? 



Since then I have observed that the common yellow primrose 

 is similarly injured by sparrows. Seeing a crowd of sparrows 

 busy among some primrose plants in my garden, I made a close 

 examination of their work. Some of the flowers had been entirely 

 plucked off; in others the entire cradle and some of the petals had 

 been bitten off and dropped on the ground, but nothing appeared 

 to have been eaten. I examined a number of the flowers care- 

 fully, first with the naked eye and then with lenses of different 

 powers, but I could find no traces of insects which the sparrows 

 might be supposed to have been seeking. 



The main point is, then. What is the motive of the sparrows in 

 thus singling out the crocus and the primrose for attack ? 



W. Slater. 



IjOndOB, England, Sept. 29. 



BOOK-REVIEWS. 



The Speech of Monkeys. By R. L. Garner. New York, Chas. L. 

 Webster & Co. 8°. 233 p. $1. 



The work of Mr. Garner upon the " Speech of Monkeys" is 

 already well known through the public press, and all who have 

 become interested in this extremely suggestive subject will be 

 pleased that he has summarized in a neat little volume the impor- 

 tant results of his work up to the present time. Nearly all of the 

 facts published in this volume have already been given to the pub- 

 lic through the pages of the Cosmopolitan, The Forum, The North 

 American Review, and other publications; but in this volume he 

 has brought together all of the important facts given in these 

 various places. Mr. Garner has been at work upon the subject of 

 monkey language for some eight years, and, although a number 

 of interesting facts were seen earlier in his observations, it was 

 the application of the modern phonograph to the study which for 

 the first time put the subject upon a scientific basis. 



The present work is divided into two parts. The first part gives 

 an outline of the facts as he has observed them, and his methods 

 of experiment. As one reads this part he receives two impressions. 

 The first is as to the exceeding scantiness of the definite results. 

 It is perhaps a little disappointing to find that the speech of 

 monkeys as thus far made out by Mr. Garner seems to be confined 

 to a few sounds, nearly every one of which has a variety of mean- 

 ings, or rather does not seem to have any exact significance. 

 This is, after all, not to be wondered at. Mr. Garner himself 

 recognizes that he has only made a beginning in his researches, 

 audit must be remembered that he has had absolutely no guidance 

 from the previous work of others. Moreover, it is to be expected 

 from their general grade of intelligence that the speech of mon- 

 keys will be confined to a few ideas, and those ideas of the widest 

 general signification. The second impression that we receive as 

 we read the book is, that Mr. Garner's work, so far as it has gone, 

 is reliable and that he is dealing with facts rather than fancies. 

 We cannot but feel that the few facts which Mr. Garner has 

 made out are well authenticated. It is very striking when we 

 learn that Mr. Garner has so far discovered the speech of monkeys 

 as to have learned the passwoi-d into their good graces, and we 

 cannot but be interested in his ability to attract the attention of 

 monkeys by saying to them, in their language, the word which 

 means food. His ability to thus obtain their good-will by the use 

 of a word of their own language ; the fact that monkeys always 

 use this word in connection with food; the very fact that the 

 meaning of the word is vague, being used in connection with food 

 or drink, or "any kindly office done them; " the fact that other 

 actions of monkeys are also always accompanied by a perfectly 

 definite sound, which Mr. Garner has in many cases been able to 

 imitate; the fact that a repetition of these sounds in all cases will 

 produce similar actions in other monkeys of the same species ; the 

 fact that monkeys of different species do not use the same sounds 

 under the same conditions; the fact that occasionally one monkey 

 learns a word used by another species of monkeys for certain pur- 

 poses; the fact that monkeys do not use these words when alone 

 but only when they have some one to talk to ; and many other 

 incidental occurrences combine to give us the feeling that, so far 

 as Mr. Garner has gone, his belief that monkeys have speech is 

 well substantiated. 



As one reads this work, he is at some loss to know in his own 

 mind whether to predict that Mr. Garner is going to be able to 

 develop the speech of monkeys to a great extent, and is only on 

 the threshold of important discoveries, or whether he has already 

 nearly reached the limit of their speech. Their language, of 

 course, cannot advance beyond their knowledge, and it may be 

 that their speech will be confined to the vague expression of a few 

 of their crude conceptions of nature. Mr. Garner believes, how- 

 ever, that there is very much to be still discovered, and that the 

 speech of monkeys is of more importance to them in expressing 

 their ideas than their gestures. 



The second part of the work is of considerably less interest, 

 being more in the line of speculation. It gives the theoretical 

 deductions which Mr. Garner is inclined to draw from the facts 

 he has already seen, and some few speculations as to the origin 



