[May, 
292 Analyses of Books. 
under the name of sport, he goes on to say : — “ But I cannot 
say that they afford any reason why persons who think it better 
to begin by attacking vivisection should be precluded from doing 
so until all these pain-giving sports are done away with. 
Cruelty by one set of people is no excuse for cruelty by another 
set of people, and it is no justification of physiologists, if they 
are cruel, that farmers and poulterers, and rat-catchers and 
angling bishops, and country gentlemen and benevolent ladies 
are all cruel in various ways, or even that they are more cruel 
than physiologists themselves.” The words we have just quoted 
prove that Dr. Pollard has failed rightly to apprehend the “in- 
consistency ” argument. We grant that any person who believes 
that the infliction of pain upon animals is wrong under any cir- 
cumstances, and who lives up to his belief, might be justified in 
beginning by attacking vivisection if he thought proper. But 
any one who does infliCt pain, or who procures its infliction by 
others, has no logical right to say a word against viviseCtion, 
unless he can prove — which these worthies never even attempt 
- — that the infliction of pain in pursuit of knowledge is less justi- 
fiable than for any other purpose. To the legal quibble that 
“ two blacks do not make one white ” (they may do in case of 
chemical combinations) we oppose the common sense proverb 
anent the kettle and the pot, or that sterner and more authorita- 
tive warning — “ Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of 
thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the 
mote out of thy brother’s eye.” 
We regret, further, to find that Dr. Pollard pays a very need- 
less compliment to at least one prominent Bestiarian — that he 
accepts, in its main features, the disgraceful ACt of 1876, and 
that he expresses no regret for the cardinal blunder of physiolo- 
gists and of the medical papers in accepting this measure with 
good grace, in advocating loyal adherence to its regulations on 
the part of investigators, and deprecating further agitation on 
the subjeCt. They were warned what the result would be, but 
they took no heed. 
The paper on the “ Metamorphoses of Lepidoptera from Santo 
Paulo, by E. Dukinfield Jones, C.E., a Corresponding Member of 
the Society, is a most valuable production. Not content, like too 
many naturalists when visiting tropical regions, with capturing 
specimens, he worked out the metamorphoses of 83 species, 
making drawings and giving descriptions of the larvae and pupae. 
He noted their habits, the time they spend in the larva and the 
pupa state, their manner of flight, the number of broods in the 
year, and a variety of other particulars. All this good, sound 
work was done without assistance, and amidst professional 
duties. The specimens, we understand, are all deposited in the 
Liverpool Free Public Museum. 
The next volume of the Society’s “ Transactions and Pro- 
ceedings ” will be noticed in our June number. 
