106 
can be read war; the fifth group is completely identical with the third, 
which has already been read as cu; while No. 6 is expressly said by 
Mae Curtin to stand ‘for all diphthongs and triphthongs beginning with the 
vowel e,” though in his Grammar it stands for ea only. In the sixteenth 
group he reads the vowel 0, whereas it must be either u if a single 
character, or oa if double, for this is the spot before alluded to, where 
the irregularity of the stone renders it doubtful whether the group be 
two letters or one. 
The seventeenth group, which he reads for , as if below the line, 
is, from its position in reference to the last letter, an unmistakeable r ; 
but I submit that this correction may not be fatal to Mr. Casey’s read- 
ing, inasmuch as if read 0 a ri, it might still be interpreted in a consis- 
tent sense. 
J should here mention, that on the flat surface of the stone, under 
the line of Ogham, are some cuttings which look like defaced or imper- 
fectly formed characters; but it seems quite impossible to determine for 
what they were intended. 
Upon the reading No. 2, I am precluded from making any remark, 
by learning that the author desires to re-consider it before committing it 
to public notice. 
In conclusion, I take the opportunity of entering a protest on behalf 
of these ancient monuments against the misplaced and misplacing zeal 
in which Ogham stones are sometimes abstracted from their natural 
habitat in the fort or lone burial-ground, where they have been found 
and brought to notice, into the-pleasure-grounds of the virtuoso, or the 
halls of archzologic societies, where they seem as much out of place and 
keeping as would any wild denizen of the mountains if introduced to 
the learned Society I have now the honour to address. I believe the 
interest of proprietors in these remarkable monuments is now suffi- 
ciently awakened to insure their preservation from being converted into 
door-lintels or gate-posts by the peasantry, as has often been done be- 
fore now in times of archeologic neglect or ignorance. But there is a 
barbarism of preservation as well as of destruction, and we must only 
refer to the better taste and consideration of Ogham coveters, that in 
removing an Ogham stone from the place where it was erected, they 
may destroy much of its interest as an antiquity, and all cts value as a 
piece of evidence. It is unnecessary for me to remark, that in reference 
to the stone now under consideration, should it prove to have any con- 
nection with the historic legend which attaches to Glen-Fais, it would 
be perfectly worthless as a witness, and scarcely worth attention as an 
antiquity, in any other locality than that in which it has lain, waiting 
to be questioned as to its silent but significant testimony, from some 
indefinitely remote period to the present time, when it is hoped that 
some of our learned Ogham interpreters may be able to reduce its record 
to intelligible language. 
The following donations were presented to the Academy :— 
Lithographs representing antiquities in his collection were presented 
by H. Westropp, Esq., of Rookhurst, county of Cork. 
