86 
NATURE NOTES. 
WORK FOR THE NATURALIST. 
T has been said with much truth that to take awaj- the 
hope of making fresh discoveries is to deprive the 
pursuit of natural history of half its zest, and it is 
sometimes assumed that, in consequence of the in- 
dustry and acumen expended in the field of recent years, there 
can be little or nothing still left for the investigator to glean. 
It would seem, however, to be more true to say that every fresh 
discovery does but multiply the questions calling for settlement, 
and provide him who would serve the cause of science with 
abundant matter for research. 
The two works named below* are a striking testimony to this. 
Dealing alike with the subject of animal life, though on different 
plans, the}' both present a broad view of our discoveries in its 
regard, and of the conclusions drawn from these discoveries as 
to the genealogical connection of its various forms. Here, how- 
ever, the resemblance ceases. While Mr. Thomson’s Animal 
Life is content to set forth conclusions, Mr. IMivart in his Types of 
Animal Life, entering more fully into the evidence as forthcoming 
in sundry representative instances, enables us to understand not 
only how much has been done towards the construction of a 
complete history of life developments, but how much more re- 
mains to do before we can speak with scientific certainty even 
upon points which appear most clear. 
To take one example in illustration. Speaking of the relation- 
ship of different forms one to another, Mr. Thomson says,| 
“indissolubly linked to the birds are the reptiles,” and else- 
where, § “ the most reptilian, least bird-like of birds, is the oldest 
fossil of all, placed in a sub-class by itself — the Archaopteryx." 
* The Study of Animal Life, by J. Arthur Thomson, F.R.S.E., &c. 
I.ontlon : John Murray, 1892, pp. 375. 
Types of Animal Life, by St. George Mivart, F.R.S. London: Osgood, 
FlcIIvane & Co., 1S93, pp. 374. 
t From Types of Animal Life. 
+ P- 9- 
§ P- 267. 
