52 
Correspondence . 
[January, 
THE ANTI-VIVISECTION AGITATION. 
To the Editor of the Journal of Science . 
Sir, — You were only too true a prophet when, in 1876, you 
warned biologists and the medical profession not to hope that 
the Bill then under discussion would be accepted as final by 
humanitarian fanatics. It appears that, although it is doubtful 
whether time can be found by Government for the consideration 
of so vital a question as patent-law reform, yet a Bill for the 
total suppression of vivisection is to be introduced. We have 
allowed fanaticism and organised ignorance to steal a march 
upon us, and the Biological Research Defence League is still in 
nuhihus. We must therefore wait no longer. Will it not be 
possible to procure formal protests against any further restrictions 
from all the scientific societies, London and provincial, which 
in any way concern themselves with the study of animal life ; 
from the medical faculties of the Universities ; from the Royal 
Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons of England, Scotland, and 
Ireland, &c. ? Should not petitions against such restrictions be 
placed for signature at the offices of the medical and scientific 
journals ? I have no doubt that Dr. Cameron, M.P., will under- 
take to deliver such petitions and to support their prayer. Unless 
we are active every experiment upon a living animal, which some 
sentimentalist may think proper to call painful, will be branded 
as a crime, and punished far more severely than torture inflicted 
upon animals out of wantonness or for amusement. — I am, &c., 
Graduate. 
“ MODERN CYNOLATRY.” 
To the Editor of the Journal of Science . 
Sir, — I beg to enclose you a cutting from the “ Boston Journal 
of Chemistry ” for December, 1880, which seems to me strongly 
to confirm the position taken by your able contributor. — I 
am, &c., 
Anti-Anubis. 
“ Sheep versus Dogs. 
“ There can be no doubt that the keeping of sheep by farmers 
in New England is a profitable industry, but the great difficulty 
