[November, 
678 Analyses of Books . 
imaginary names, which the children were to guess; they suc- 
ceeded in five cases out of ten. Three cases were complete 
failures ; but in the two remaining the names given had a resem- 
blance to those which had been fixed on. “ Jacob Williams ” 
was given as u Jacob Wild,” and “ Emily Walker” as “ ’Enry 
Walker,” the guesser in the latter case being the maid-servant. 
In the second set of experiments, performed with the same 
children, by Messrs. Myers and Gurney and two ladies who were 
entire strangers to the family, we remark that of three fictitious 
names to be guessed all were failures, but that in two of these 
cases the names guessed were somewhat similar to those which 
had been selected by the experimentalists. For “ Martha 
Billings ” they guessed “ Martha Biggis,” and for “ Catherine 
Smith ” “ Catherine Shaw.” In guessing a card selected at 
random out of a pack they were successful in nine cases out of 
fourteen. On two other occasions there were eight consecutive 
successes, once with cards and once with names. These results 
practically exclude coincidence, since in the former case “ the 
adverse odds were over 142 millions to 1, and in the latter incal- 
culably greater.” 
In other cases “ Chester ” was guessed for Leicester, “ Free- 
more ” for Frogmore, “ Singrore ” and “ Grover ” for Snelgrove. 
It is conceivable that by collating those cases where the word 
guessed approximates to that selected some light may be thrown 
on the method in which thought is communicated from one brain 
to another. We hope that the Committee will therefore continue 
their interesting observations, though we scarcely see that the 
evidence thus obtained can be decisive as against the material- 
istic philosophy. 
The Victorian Review , August 1st, 1882. Melbourne : The 
Victorian Review Publishing Company, Limited. 
This number may be noticed as containing one of the most able 
and thoughtful of the many articles which have been called forth 
by the death of Charles Darwin. 
The author, T. Jeffrey Parker, fully appreciates the man whose 
eulogium he delivers at the Antipodes. He declares that “ in an 
age of eminent naturalists it occurs to very few to question the 
right of Darwin to a position above them all as the father of 
modern biology.” He then, as a key to the position, gives a 
brief sketch of the history of philosophical biology as distin- 
guished from the mere collection of desultory faCts. He notices 
the labours of Wolff, Linnaeus, the elder Darwin, and Buffon. 
He considers that the last of these worthies “ would in all proba- 
