1882.] 
Analyses of Books . 
681 
wildest conclusion of all, except perhaps the theory that this one 
pyramid points to the future of the British race.” He recom- 
mends that the pyramids should be re-cased, when their value 
for surveying will at once appear. At the same time he admits 
that they may have had subsidiary uses, and recommends borings 
near and within them for the purpose of detecting subterranean 
vaults. 
The author of this interesting work may be communicated 
with at Malvern. 
The Field Naturalist and Scientific Student. October, 1882. 
In this issue we find some very interesting matter. Dr. R. Angus 
Smith, who rarely touches upon any subjedt without saying some- 
thing worthy of note, gives a paper on National Voices. The 
peculiarity of the Scottish voice has, it appears, previously been 
remarked. Now Dr. R. A. Smith, when in Germany, heard an 
engineer explaining an apparatus for cutting and preparing peat, 
and was struck with his voice, which had a distinctly Scottish 
character. The speaker was, it appeared, not a true German, 
but a native of Slesvic, from which region many of the so-called 
Saxon immigrants to Britain must have come. In spite of the 
lapse of time and of many changes the vocal character has thus 
clung to the race on both sides the sea. Such similarities, Dr. 
R. A. Smith suggests, may be useful in tracing out the affinities 
and the wanderings of nations. 
A note by Mr. H. Kerr raises the question as to the introduc- 
tion of the wild cherry into England and Scotland. It may be 
remarked that in some parts of the North of England this spe- 
cies is known as the “ merrie ” tree, — a synonym pointing to its 
French name merise , and perhaps an additional piece of evidence 
in favour of its having been introduced into Britain by way of 
France. 
A lady who uses the signature Rosa pleads for the “ popular 
names of birds and plants as each contributing a little informa- 
tion.” But what if the information thus contributed is incorreCt ? 
Dr. R. A. Prior communicates a paper on “ Errors in the 
Popular Names of Plants.” Here he informs us that for more than 
300 years the name “Forget-me-not” was given to Ajuga 
Chamcepitys , whilst our Forget-me-not then went by the clumsy 
name of “ Mouse-ear Scorpion-grass.” The change of name is 
said to have taken place as recently as 1821. We must, how- 
ever, remark that the new nomenclature with the legend of the 
drowning lover took root very rapidly. In 1835 we were shown 
the precise spot in the Rhine where the gallant knight had 
VOL. IV. (XHIRi) SERIES). 2 Y 
