442 Jewish Shekels and other Coins of Ancient Judea. 



num, which is a soft, elastic membrane, the insect is able to 

 inflate, and wherewith it pushes open the lid of its pupa- case ; 

 moreover, the abdomen has something of the same kind, pro- 

 bably to push against its case, and further assist its exit. 



From these few observations I think we may look with in- 

 terest, if not with admiration, on the common sheep-tick, and 

 as a whole mounted insect, it is both easy to prepare and very 

 satisfactory as an object for the polariscope, or for study of the 

 legs, spiracles, and suctorial apparatus. 



Explanation op the Plate. — Fig. I. Melophagus, or Sheep- 

 tick. Fig. II. Outline of Melophagus to show the position of 

 the spiracles. Fig. III. Spiracles, open and closed. Fig. IV. 

 The nervous system of Melophagus. Fig. Y. Digestive organs : 

 «, Salivary glands ; b, Alimentary canal ; c, Hepatic ducts ; d, 

 Boutons charnus on the rectum. Fig. VI. Internal papillae, 

 with the tracheal vessels exposed. Fig. VII. Foetus, with 

 umbilical cord (a) ; b, anal spiracles; c, front view of the same; 

 d, Pupa as found in the wool of the sheep. Fig. VIII. The 

 tarsi and claws of Melophagus. 



JEWISH SHEKELS AND OTHEB COINS OF ANCIENT 



JUDEA. 



BY H. NOEL HUMPHREYS. 

 (Second Article.) 



My paper on Jewish shekels, which appeared in the December 

 No. (xxiii.) of the Intellectual Observer has brought me 

 several communications on the subject, some requesting further 

 information on certain details connected with this interesting 

 subject, others suggesting a different assignation of particular 

 coins, others only critical as to a misprint or two of the modern 

 Hebrew characters. One correspondent asks why, in the de- 

 ciphered inscription of a shekel of Yaddous (taking for granted 

 the attribution of M. de Saulcy), of the second year, the 

 Hebrew i should be omitted, as it appears on the specimen 

 engraved in tho plate. In answer to this question I may 

 state that my interpretation was that of the inscription of a 

 coin, now before me, in which the letter in question does not 

 occur. I have been induced to consider it as a blunder of the 

 engraver, seeing that a good and sufficient meaning has not 

 been suggested for it. Some numismatists have thought that 

 it expressed the dual form, in allusion to the second year ; 

 others, again, assuming tho coin to belong to Simon Macca- 

 baeus, pretend that the dual form was intended to have refer- 



