Notes. 
603 
1880.] 
from the instructed reader, is yet calculated to tell disastrously 
against the progress of research by stimulating a rabid opposi- 
tion to scientific needs on the part of the multitude. As the 
supporters of the anti-vaccination movement have gathered 
strength from the unwise silence maintained by the profession 
in regard to truths whose incontestable nature they clearly ap- 
prehend, so it is with the vivisection question. In all controversy 
where faCt and science are pitted against ignorance and assump- 
tion, the issue has never been nor will be in doubt. But the 
insidious influence of oft-repeated and uncontradiCled assertions 
will do irreparable injury unless an effort ere long be made to 
stem the advancing tide of prejudice and ignorance.” In making 
the above extract from the “ Medical Press and Circular ” we 
wish to point out that in all such agitations the party of attack 
has a great advantage. A falsehood can always be stated in 
fewer words than are required for its exposure, and this often in 
proportion to its very impudence. In this case, too, whilst the 
attack is made in journals read by the general public, in adver- 
tisements, and posting-bills, the defence has been almost exclu- 
sively confined to professional and scientific organs which never 
reach the multitude. Unless aCtive steps are taken experimental 
biology will soon be entirely crushed, so far as the United King- 
dom is concerned. 
We are glad to learn that the Legislature is not wholly un- 
mindful of the necessity of securing more efficient proteftion 
for wild birds. The existing Adis are to be consolidated and 
somewhat extended. The Duke of Argyll, however, pointed out 
that the new Bill had been carelessly drawn up “ Of the sixty- 
eight birds enumerated thereinTully half were simple synonyms, 
and one bird was in several cases mentioned two or three times 
over under different names.” The omission of the woodpecker 
and the kingfisher is to be regretted. But the provisions of the 
Bill are of little moment unless when it becomes law it is to be 
stridtly enforced. 
Attention has been called by the “Standard” to the ap- 
proaching extirpation of not a few of the most beautiful species 
of wild flowers, ferns, &c. We can, of our own knowledge, 
confirm many of the writer’s statements. We know localities 
where the hart’s-tongue, the beech- and oak-fern grew freely a 
dozen years ago, but where they would now be quite as difficult 
to find as would a deposit of diamonds. 
According to M. Daubree the Paris Museum receives from 
time to time spurious meteorites, sent in good faith, and some- 
times by persons of scientific standing, such as Le Verrier and 
Becquerel. 
The removal of the Natural History Department of the British 
Museum to its new site in Cromwell Road, South Kensington, 
