1885.] 
Analyses of Books. 
555 
in Burma, where there is much to be seen not yet recorded. He 
notices Ficus laccifera as yielding caoutchouc quite as good as 
that 01 r icus elastica, but strangely overlooked. The tenacity of 
eot th ericus genus and their power ofdestroying other trees and 
e ven buildings are ably and correctly described. The account 
,°. Bahalias catching birds on trees with rods smeared with 
lrd-lime is decidedly painful. The author remarks that “ paro- 
quets, notwithstanding their large brains, are foolish fowl after 
a I. Continuing his notes in animal psychology he tells us that 
oemno pith ecus cristatus is far inferior in intelligence to the 
common fishing monkey ( Macacus cynomulgus ), and this is strange, 
tor the skull of Semnopithecus has a far better shape, and is not 
nearly so retreating, as that of the Macacus .” 
The peepul-tree was, we are told, simply alive with birds. The 
tailor bird ( Orthotomus sutorius ) has profited by civilisation. As 
is well known it sews leaves to form its nest. In gardens it often 
discards the rough fibres produced in the jungle, and uses cotton 
thread stolen from the house. The thread is knotted at one end, 
passed through both leaves, drawn tight, knotted again, and the 
remainder cut off. 
Butterflies in numbers were attracted apparently by the heavy 
odour of the peepul fruit. 
The fire-ants, Formica smaragdina, notwithstanding their 
feiocity, are preyed upon by a Mantis, which mimics them 
so closely that it is able to approach a stray ant without being 
detected until too late. 
Two mud-building solitary wasps, one red-brown and the other 
a deep blue, are a pest in Burma from their habit of stopping 
key-holes with their clay nests. One of these nests of three cells 
was seen to be built and provisioned in 2 hours 7 minutes. We 
hope we have not heard the last of Mr. Charles Bingham. 
Mr. J. Horner contributes two sound articles on “ Work for 
the Microscope,” in one of which he treats in a very practical 
manner on .the collection of specimens which may serve as 
objects. 
Mr. John Robertson is the author of two papers of singular 
ability. The first of these, “ Concerning Ritual,” we were about 
to pass over as not coming within our scope. We found, how- 
ever, that he raises the weighty question whether in these days 
man is becoming more or less differentiated ? Whether indi- 
viduality is waxing or, as Stuart Mill contended, waning? Mr. 
Robertson rejedts the view of Mill, and in some respedts he is 
right. But he omits one fadtor which tends to increase monotony 
in charadter : the examinational tendency of modern English 
education. It is somewhat singular that none of the organs of 
breethought, as far as we are aware, ever raises a protest against 
this bureaucratic system. 
Ihe article winds up with a scathing exposure of positivism. 
Mr. Robertson writes : — “ An enthusiastic system-maker pro- 
2 P 2 
