EE VIEWS. 
215 
Impressed with the opinions to which we have given expression, it is with 
much pleasure that we introduce to our readers a series of interesting 
popular works on Natural History which have appeared during the past 
quarter. The first on our list is written by a lady, Mrs. L. Agassiz, and is 
illustrated by Mr. Alexander Agassiz. It is devoted to descriptions of 
the marine animals of Massachusetts Bay, U.S., and contains nearly two 
hundred pretty woodcuts, which, as they present a black background, very 
prettily depict the transparent creatures whose history is given in the text. 
The authoress limits her description to the animals included in the old sub- 
kingdom Radiata ; but she describes a greater number of these than will be 
found in any other general essay. Her style is clear, and her statements are, 
in most cases, accurate. As much as possible she avoids touching upon 
abstract questions ; and this is, perhaps, best in such a work as she has 
written. Of course, we should have wished to see the Hydrozoa more 
correctly defined, and the Echinoderms’ affinities with the Annulosa alluded 
to ; but, since zoologists, who ought to know more of these matters than Mrs. 
Agassiz, persist in adopting Cuvier’s classification, we cannot attach special 
blame to the present writer. There is a great deal of information in her 
volume which can only be found elsewhere in such treatises as Forbes’s 
“ Naked-eyed Medusae ” and Huxley’s “ Oceanic Hydrozoa ; and we think, 
therefore, that Mrs. Agassiz has produced a book which meets a want. 
The “ Structure of Animal Life,” though coming from one of the most eminent 
zoologists in the world, is really inferior to the work we have just noticed. It 
is a report of six lectures, delivered at Brooklyn Academy of Music in 1862. 
However, as it relates more to the principles of Natural History than to 
facts, it is, perhaps, unfair to compare it with Mrs. Agassiz’s volume. It is 
published by the Directors of the institution referred to, who dwell in some- 
what grandiloquent terms upon the old subject of design. If Professor 
Agassiz had given us anything new, or had supplied us with a sketch which 
was not to be found in every treatise upon Zoology, or had even put old 
matter in a new form, we should have had higher praise to award him than 
we can conscientiously bestow. Of the zoological merits of his book we 
have little to say ; on most points he adopts the current theories and 
opinions. The feature to which we would call attention, and which, in our 
opinion, deserves the greatest censure, is one which is, unhappily, too 
common in Natural History treatises. We allude to the habit which certain 
naturalists display of dabbling in Divine matters. It appears to them that, 
unless they drag the Creator into every second paragraph, their essay will 
not possess the necessary religious veneering for the public taste. Now, 
when allusion is discriminately and respectfully made to the works of the great 
First Cause, no fault can be found. But we must raise our voice against the 
objectionable tendency of some writers to dilate upon what they suppose to 
be the views of the Almighty. The practice is unnecessary, and in some 
instances borders upon the blasphemous, whilst it occasionally conveys 
a degraded notion of the Omnipotent. No doubt the nature of the lectures 
on our table involved allusions of the kind we refer to, to a certain extent ; 
but we think the author should have avoided the following passage “ I 
trust you will allow me this evening to enter into such details as will make it 
perfectly evident, that when we analyze these structures, we disclose the 
