306 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
I take for my text and for my justification, if need there be, the 
following passage from De Gubernatis, who, although the author of a 
zoological mythology, lays no claim to being a zoologist himself. He 
says: ‘‘ And if I have sought to compare several physiological laws 
with the myths, it is not because I attribute to the myth a wisdom 
greater than that which it contains in reality, but only to indicate that, 
much better than metaphysics, the science of Nature, with the criteria 
of positive philosophy can help us to study the original production of 
myths and their successive development in tradition.” 
It will be observed in the pages which follow that, besides the 
simple identifications, there are what may conveniently be called com- 
pound identifications of two classes. In the first, two or more animals, 
as described by the compilers, are shown to owe their origin to accounts 
by different authors of the same animals or plants, the identity of 
which was not perceived by compilers like Atlian (cf. p. 316). In the 
other class, under one name, characteristics belonging to more than one 
species are included (cf. p. 831). Both these, but especially the latter, 
have increased the difficulties of identification.® 
But afew words remain to be said as to the arrangement of the facts 
contained in the following pages. Originally it was my intention to 
make use of some of them as illustrations of a Paper on the origin of 
myths; but, as they multiplied, it seemed to me that they would have 
an additional value if they were so arranged that they could be easy 
of reference; and, in order to complete the list, I have included many 
identifications which have been made by others. This is more parti- 
cularly the case with the plants yielding drugs: these have for a long 
time attracted the notice of botanists and other experts; but their 
determinations have not in all instances been incorporated into the 
footnotes of commentators. 
There still remain a few accounts of animals and plants which have 
yet to be grappled with ; some of these I hope to be able to discuss 
hereafter, and it may be that I shall see my way to account for some 
of the so-called mythical tribes of men described by the early Greeks. 
Some of them, however, appear to be quite beyond the reach of ex- 
planation, but others may possibly be identified with particular 
tribes of what are commonly, but not always correctly, called the 
aboriginal inhabitants of India. 
6 Pliny’s accounts of minerals furnish a striking example of both: on the one 
hand, under half a dozen different names, culled from different authors, he has de- 
scribed the same mineral over and over again without recognizing the identity. In 
several cases, notably in that of the Adamas, he describes several distinct minerals 
under one title. 
