214 
EE VIEWS. 
journal is continually referred to by Sir Charles; and though our 
later numbers have appeared too recently to be mentioned in his 
work, we rejoice to find that in the most important points we are 
entirely in unison with him. 
We need make no apology to Sir Charles for criticising his work 
freely. It is, indeed, one of his great merits that when he changes 
an opinion he tells us so frankly, and even goes out of his way to do 
it, proving thereby that he values the truth more than his own repu¬ 
tation. Though, therefore, we think that Sir Charles scarcely gives 
due prominence to the labours of his predecessors in these investi¬ 
gations, and especially to those of Dr. Falconer and Mr. Prestwich, 
we are quite satisfied that this is unintentional. As might naturally 
have been expected, it is specially in the biological portions that some 
few errors have crept in. For instance, he refers the discovery of 
alternate generation to “ Sefstrom.” Who is Sefstrom ? Can it be 
a misprint for Steenstrup P Again, the focus of the genus Camellia 
(not Camelia) is in the Indo-Chinese region, so that its selection as 
a type of the Southern Hemisphere is not happy. So in p. 398 Coni¬ 
fers are excluded from Exogens, while in p. 405 he alludes to them as 
included in that class. We regret also to see that he adopts Professor 
Owen’s name of Archaeopteryx macrurus for the Solenhofen enigma. 
Changes of specific names are highly objectionable, and Professor 
Owen has not, in the abstract published in the Royal Society’s Pro¬ 
ceedings, given any reason for rejecting the name proposed by Meyer. 
As an illustration of our still very imperfect acquaintance with 
the entire fauna of the Age of Stone in Denmark, he mentions, 
p. 371, that, though instruments made of the bones and horns of the 
Elk and Reindeer have been met with, “ yet no skeleton or uncut 
“ bone of either of those species has hitherto been observed in the 
“ same peatunless however we are greatly mistaken, remains of 
both these animals have been found in the peat, and a nearly entire 
skeleton of the former animal was found in Laaland about the year 
1852, and is now in the Museum of Copenhagen. He speaks also of 
human skulls of the Bronze age found in the Danish peat, but we 
are not aware that any skulls exist in Denmark which can certainly 
be referred to that period. 
In p. 20, he speaks of amber as having been obtained at Moos- 
seedorf, which is a Swiss lake habitation belonging to the Stone age. 
This, if it be the case, is important, because it would imply a com¬ 
munication at that early period between the shores of the Baltic and 
the lakes of Switzerland. But we cannot help thinking that there is 
some mistake here. It is true that Troyon mentions amber as be¬ 
longing to the Stone age in Switzerland, on the authority of specimens 
found at Meilen; but, as a few articles of bronze were also obtained 
at this locality, we should rather be disposed to refer the amber to 
the Bronze age. 
Sir Charles mentions, with just commendation, the efforts made 
by the Swiss Archaeologists to fix a date for the Lake habitations. 
