Ill 
read an abstract before the Linnsean Society in i««i „* „ 
^ inC6 !T’ descr jb in g what he calls the “Agricultural Ant.” ' ThTanuI 
it tJ G 1 ° exas ' 'f 0nl " 7 does 14 la y “P a store of seed, but it cultivates 
t. It plants a crop of peculiar grass in a circular space round its mound It 
d *T,"f d, “ wl =»“.“!»* * to <b.« « tK" 
will be forrprl hv w. ^ 1 alestme > 1 tbmk no naturalist 
fsdeSblund t0 ‘u SUbjeCt ’ aSSCTting that ’ M ° ses as a la 4ver made 
“fne rf tbl T T CU ° the har6 ’ he COtJd not be S-Vtad. Now, 
~f ° Ue ° f th °f 1“ est10 ^ “ which I think we may invoke the aid of 
a P S1S ' ° es oses assert that tJl e hare chews the cud? Is it certain 
ha-e , * r “ sl f ors have erectly interpreted the word used by Moses as the 
£st"rr 0 ^“rrrr^rriT" 
fooT dm*" th \ Am f eth is a8S0cia tbd with two other animals as forbiddm 
they chewTe 4 ’cuT ^ ^ *“ b «, ^ 
“s? t haVe “ “ ^ C ° ntey ’ h ° er "*“*> "*“® copte 
m Psalm civ. 18, and in Proverbs xxx 2fi y„ in * "L P ’ 
nncertainty .with regard to the Septuagint' translS^o^ XnC 
nd proof m the fact of the various readings of that translation WHIp 
many -F- of the Septuagint give us xo.poju^, others render the worf 
khaphan by Xay^v, a hare. Still further, to show the uncertainty as to the 
translation of the words AM and Shaphan, the Gre“irh " of 
Whd w rr interctan « ed in various readings f the sirSnt 
Wlnle the Septuagint, therefore, throws considerable doubt on ifsT 
Me 6 Tr S l° f T t WOtd3 Aniebdh and ‘ Sha P han > “mparative philology gives 
‘tie “ n ° aid t0 ™ researches. From exegetical considerations Z7 
I 
