COEEESPONDENCE, 
303 
The column marked " Maccagnone " should have been headed " Mac- 
cagnone and San Giro/' and the species inserted therein are those derived 
from both localities. 
The Fells, Ursus, Hymna, Sos, mppopotamus, and Cervus have been 
hitherto not referred to their species by Dr. Falconer. To obviate further 
mistake, I append a list of the species derived from both bone-caves, 
as stated in Dr. Falconer's paper (Quarterly Journal, GeoL Soc. vol. 
xvi. 1860, p. 99 et seq.) :— 
San Giro Cave, 
Two miles from Palermo. 
Fehs, a large species. 
Canis. 
Ursus. 
Cervus. 
Bos. 
Sus. 
Elephas antirpius. 
Hippopotamus, j^wo species. 
Maccagnone Cave, 
A mile west of Cariui, uear Palermo. 
Felis, " as large as P. speleea, but not yet 
S])ecifically determined." 
Ursus. 
Hycena. 
Cervus. 
Bo. 
two species. 
E/epJias antiquus. 
Hippopotamus. 
Bones of Ruminants. 
The liability in a table of this kind to error is obvious, when the 
exigencies both of space and time are duly considered. 
Before the unenviable employment is commenced by me of "a wholesale 
manufacture of species," I shall wait the further identification of tlie 
specimens from the Sicilian bone-caves by Dr. Falconer. 
Yours truly, 
Chables Carter Blake. 
Origin of Species. 
SiE, — In the July number of the 'Geologist' is a letter from Professor 
King, of Galway, expressing the opinions to which that high authority has 
arrived, after years of due thought and consideration, on the probable 
method of operation of continuously-operating secondary laws, which have 
produced the species of animals successively or progressively throughout 
geological time. While paying the highest tribute to the candid manner 
in which this eminent geologist has treated his subject, I am led to suggest 
that the meaning of one passage in his admirable paper may be liable to 
misconstruction. 
Professor King holds " that an organism, whether it typifies a species, 
a genus, a family, an order, or a class, i^ an autotheogen, if it possesses a 
series of characters whicli isolate it from other equivalent groups ; " and 
that inherent and external forces may modify such organism, " thereby 
resulting in geneotheonomous forms." The limits within which au- 
totheogeny can be predicted are, however, left unexplained by Professor 
^^"S- . . . . . . ■ 
A writer in 1830, reasoning from the philosophical standpoint of the 
state of knowledge in the time of Cuvier, would have confidently pointed 
