88 
POPULAE SCIENCE EEYIEW. 
into error. The only portion of the work which deserves censure is that 
in which the classification of the animal kingdom is given. This is a most 
heterogeneous conglomeration of what may he styled geologically “ fossil ” 
and “recent” views. We find the Echinoderms under both Kadiata and 
Articulata. Yolvox is called an animal ; Anthozoa is made the equivalent 
of Ccelenterata ; Cirrhopoda is separated from Crustacea ; and the Hydra 
is put along with the sea-anemones. All these are glaring errors, which 
might easily have been avoided had the author submitted his proof-sheets 
to any one conversant with modern zoology. 
CONTEIBUTIONS TO NATUEAL HISTOEY. * 
A EUEAL D.D. has in this volume put together a number of reviews 
written chiefly for the Quarterly Journal of Agriculture. He recom- 
mends us to look for new sources of food in fish and fungi, and is here and 
there facetious at the expense of men whom, in the absence of the author’s 
name, we must consider his superiors. The several chapters of which the 
book is composed are written in that harem-scarem, funny style which 
savants of a certain class are wont to adopt when preparing literary 
side-dishes for the journalistic table. The book defies analysis, for it merely 
contains the matter of other treatises upholstered with the current small- 
wit and reflection of “ periodical ” critics. A little really nutritious matter 
drowned in sauce-piquante may be palatable enough to some, but we are more 
fatidious, and must confess that a Eural D.D.’s “ Contributions to Natural 
History,” as he modestly styles them, have afforded us neither pleasure nor 
profit. The chapter on the herring is the only one worthy of notice which 
the book contains. In it we find Mr. Mitchell’s work reviewed, and its author 
as well abused as possible. A D.D. does not consider Mr. Mitchell to be an 
original observer, but regards him as a compiler. An opinion of this kind 
coming from an anonymous writer has its own insignificance but to those 
who are aware how valuable are Mr. Mitchell’s numerous researches, it seems 
simply absurd. However, let the author of one of the finest zoological 
monographs which has yet been written take consolation ; he travels in the same 
boat with Professor Huxley, who, in common with the other deep-sea fishery 
commissioners, is charged with “ sanctioning a loose morality and reckless 
disregard for the future by no means to be encouraged.” The following 
passage is the best example we can offer of the rational character of a D.D.’s 
argument : — “ Having heard Professor Huxley arguing that the archetype of 
the human frame is that of the monkey, we presume that he at least will 
not be astonished if it be shown that the herring is merely a developed 
garvie.” The volume has neither literary nor scientific merit, and save as a 
source of gratification to the author, we are at a loss to imagine why it was 
published. 
* “ Contributions to Natural History, chiefly in Delation to the Food of 
the People.” By a Eural D.D. Edinburgh : Blackwood & Sons. 1865. 
