EE VIEWS. 
79 
be conceded, that very few, if any, possess. Thus it happened that Agassiz’s 
treatise did not supply what was required. The gap, however, was filled, we 
think about six years ago, by the publication of a most valuable German 
treatise by Professor Cams. This work was arranged upon a scheme the 
opposite to that of Agassiz’s ; the essays and memoirs were arranged alpha- 
betically and according to their proper groups, so that reference to “ work 
done ” became no longer a difficulty. But each year brought its own quota 
of grain to the garner of scientific knowledge, and it was found necessary to 
make some provision for its reception. This labour, therefore, was taken in 
hand by the conductors of the “ Natural History Review,” when that periodical 
passed from its former Irish to its present English managers. Each quarter 
this journal supplied classified lists of the memoirs previously printed, and in 
this way it formed an excellent supplement to Carus’s “ Bibliotheca.” For 
this particular feature, the “ Natural History Review ” was highly esteemed, 
and we believe we are correct in saying that these bibliographical records 
obtained for it many subscribers who^were not attracted by its Darwinian 
principles. Now, good and useful persons are often, if not always, exceed- 
ingly dull companions ; and we believe that to the great mass of our 
scientific readers, there is an analogy between people and literature. Useful 
reading is seldom light and entertaining. At least so it appears to have been 
in the case of the readers of the “Natural History Review,” who seem to 
have had a species of mental dyspepsia, which forbade their partaking of any 
but the very lightest scientific literature. The publishers (publishers in 
matters of this kind are invariably the most considerate of mortals) soon 
diagnosed the condition we have referred to, and so the piece de resistance 
was removed, and the “ Natural History Review” ceased to provide for the 
bibliographical wants of zoologists. In this state the matter was left for 
a couple of years, until Dr. Gunther, with an energy and enthusiasm which 
do him infinite credit, conceived the plan of publishing a yearly volume, 
which would bring the record of zoological progress up to within twelve 
months of the period of its issue. He planned and he has executed, and in 
the large handsome closely-printed book upon our table, we have, in all that 
relates to the progress of zoology, a nearly complete, and a most valuable 
volume. If we say nearly complete, it is not in deprecation we employ the 
term ; it is simply from the circumstance that the record of memoirs upon 
the Protozoa and Coelenterata did not reach the editor in time for publication 
in the present volume. 
The “ Zoological Record,” though constructed somewhat upon the plan of 
Carus’s work, and being more easy of reference, is fuller in its details. It 
embraces not only the titles, dates, and places of publication of the several 
zoological essays issued during the year 1864, but in most instances it 
supplies short and pithy abstracts of them. In employing it, the naturalist 
not only discovers at a glance what papers have been written upon the 
subject he is pursuing, but he is enabled to perceive the mode of treatment 
adopted in each, and in this way has his journey immensely shortened and 
facilitated. Throughout the entire volume unity of plan has been aimed at, 
and although here and there we find the caprices of individual writers dis- 
playing themselves in deviations from the editor’s scheme, still, on the whole, 
there is an excellent symmetry of execution. The letter-press extends over 
