Seer

—

nest

eg ee eel Din, ee ee at = =
- la Ae — Se

Meee a RTE RET Ne EE i Pe pe ee ee wow Fagen. suk an.
mes oe, ran i y 4 Sarre Pe nye

an atta aeame attests tern tes rel pele : ay te se ~~
—————~ oe ot a nn ee

Wy ee ruveeeoeu ry vu Ww Wy Nice

VU WV V V Vi JW iN iii © HM : Oy
¥ aero ten Jit V ACU) W VMAS Wig yw ge U9 ew A) SWAY an A : Mig AW
Juv Ny MONA ic MWe cu veyay sat WWW Ny v
yyvy

VIN sy Y

Wyo iE TENE, mt |
Vv

Ni : i Mi diy

WW Wy A i WY Wye VUE MLN SU
WW V Abe . Ft {Ue SW Ye NYY ISIS
WwW poet Mis Ly NRW YS i“ avy “ wy
S| i J} RAVWiehna WS WU Yly
a Vwi

aphula iae mp & neyernngerns.
ny 7 A tes aa ee, hs eh
here! 5 5 Seaan
¥ Made S , 5 ie joie ea

X LIBRI

Aiernnt iy

am Healev

Division of Mollusks
ectional |

< ys i

pa WS
MANU ROIIG |i PS “Week asi :
YY Nv WG es & i Wit a

<é
‘s
AN His
<=
ais
ees
SSS
gee
<
€3
<
=
Cc
°=
<_
<x
<_
re
x—

ye
a

s 3 | Seen iyi dW Ys

= AV Ue iy SLA, NaN Dh UY
ae Re WY ne yy UUM ju

| Vi
ue PY Vv Menvuv waar’ '
‘NYE "NW" So WEN eal JUN a
nie AY oY : w¥ys IN : YY VUOVy Vis) Vv U wi BY |
NSS A : WOES Sa Moa eeNy We oes UB) Ms NNN

siti NW Mii
vw WW wis WW \ W Wy Ni
\ \ UL hig 4 Pg ‘ ch PS Ath iy - te bala UY \ of VU Phot: se y \ NW Mi he MK M NAY Sd MIU pM.

Divisi
ectional 1

vate ving wobcdet
nt oy ih ate vinta aA
4 ha eatin crane oz ohh ih i ni a
m4 dnote ‘ete viet tye i ke ‘ore NUON, ia
>. yi, aD le aly’ TW

iu Se Rp. dey, wel fe rs tht € Hope 4

Kai ™ ‘ ad rd Ae :
sites why mLigncijoha: «i Gem ial
; ' ‘ Wi eh q vue on yet J0ee ERR ee ag pi AGR: \. iio WORE
‘ae Vie bodiiiedt: Tote ab ee 4 dayventiin’ yd ah)

: MUR pet arse icra i aiten are AORN ati evinced re ek
= howd. yl ie aban bein A iy
+ 14) sett ee cull’! panei oF nein

a fh issue) Lets ope <a MST?
a te ei Se ae aE. %

| c {i | iri ane awe’

H . Hi Cie aybtRe i! il lek aa vi ribo
as ial nae ed tle Lc-vohink tian
- id ncuilaes 3 if fap hea iy ee ete a as) ee ‘ify Foner sh
a: , Mia Paige Ue og) yy (aise tea i Oy a

r

Ba (hs va tpiet Pe abit ® otehacl Fitwdog st herlnp ancient

rhe v PIV yer j fb seaale conad Lawl o 1 b
oa ad . ‘ at

ss rai 7) iP rH } ; wet a) ie

rT) » ‘ 4 -* ‘

. dd f j is

ia) at)) v4 ; i ie fa? ive “r

y leis | hiein ! as Serres phi Seah inf Gs Se 4

oh r j aie ,

j : a. i PIA) SOA err iagead doe

Ms, t i uf ae

it ate TO Re AGES st ORAL i Oe iri al i

un eee ne ny aid PITY 4 1) nly tot: ony shies

: ‘ Wik eh tr bey baled hi tak Yeorlegh

Reererew Di {Nydas dad ae ae ae ape

4 : apd vy ithe lunge ie 3 be ee hi

| Ni north ih" iene Moeg i ire ey: AS ple

ae . sly 2) eevee (Ga bento

at. | | ; qi ate fal et pperaena
:

’

‘
~
a
a
-
.

[ited Pie ea tras fy sr
3 , Pat) ako a ;
! thé’ bed aaa cl i :

} ‘ 1” en eh iia Th Awad d tien }
is : cgieny ihaiohe dite ob iteds ry Ale

1
al y
} a ’
y r
ia
'
I
Aj .
*
iene at $
~
- ‘ ’
} ' ’
’

’
.
LY

nee:

Pres
Sate i 8
aa

[FRoM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ScIENCE AND Arts, Vou. VII, FEs., 1874. |

17. On the Systematic Position of the Brachiopoda ; by E. 8.
Morse. (From the Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural
History, vol. xv, 1873.) 60 pages, with numerous figures.—In this
memoir Professor Morse has presented, at some length, his argu-
ments in favor of uniting the Brachiopods with the Chetopod
Worms. His avowed object is “to show that in every point of
their structure, the Brachiopoda are true worms, with possibly
some affinities to the Crustacea, and that they have no relations to
the Mollusca, save what many other worms may possess in com-
mon with them.”

In this and several other valuable papers on the Brachiopods
the author has presented many facts of great interest and import-
ance concerning their anatomy and embryology, and for these he
deserves much credit, whether we accept his theories concerning
their relations to the worms, or not. <A full discussion of his
theory and arguments, on this subject, will not be attempted at
this time; but as some of his statements are calculated to mislead
those not familiar with the subject, a few exceptions to such state-
ments may not be out of place. On pages 7 to 10 (319 to 322, in
Proc.) a summary is given of the characters in which Worms
and Mollusks are supposed to differ; and on pages 58 and 59, the
characters of ‘“‘ Vermes” and Brachiopods are compared in paral-
lel columns. In both places the terms “worms,” “ Vermes,”
“ Annulata,” are used so indefinitely that it is not always easy to
tell whether certain characters are intended to apply to all worms,
or “vermes,” or to particular groups, like the Annelids. But
considering the immense diversity in the anatomy and embryology
of the numerous groups, of at least ordinal value, if not classes,
already referred to the “ Vermes,” this distinction is of essential
importance. ‘Thus it would be easy to show that there are excep-
tions (often very numerous) to nearly every character given as
characteristic of “‘ Vermes” on pp. 58, 59. It would also be easy
to show that part of the characters given as common to Vermes
and Brachiopods are common, likewise, to most other classes of
Invertebrata, including certainly some Mollusks and Radiates.

The first character given (p. 7) relates to form: ‘“ We have in
the Vermes a form, whose length is much greater in proportion to
its breadth than in the Mollusks.” Many Annelids, like Aphrodite,
Euphrosyne, certain leeches, and many of the lower “ Vermes,”
like the Planarians, are notable exceptions, being relatively
broader and shorter than the majority of Mollusks. Again, “ the
worm is perfectly bilaterally symmetrical, depressed, flattened or
circular, the dorsal and ventral regions so near alike in many
cases as to be distinguished with difficulty, and the body never
flattened laterally,” the reverse being stated of the Mollusks.
But we find mony Annelids that are more or less asymmetrical,

155 Geology and Natural History.

either in the number and form of the jaws (Diopatra, ete.), or in
the cephalic appendages, as in Serpulide, where one of the
branchiz, on one side, is often transformed into an operculum ; or
in various other organs, in different groups; while the dorsal and
ventral regions are often quite as strongly contrasted as in any
mollusk; and in some cases the body is compressed laterally
(Ammotrypane). But on the other hand, mollusks are often
nearly or quite symmetrical (many Nudibranches, Chitons, Ptero-
pods, Cephalopods) and are frequently cylindrical or even de-
pressed (Doris, Chitons, Cephalopods, Pteropods). In fact form
is a very poor character for characterizing any large group of
animals, and should have little or no weight in this case. The
ventral connections of the “locomotor muscles” in mollusks and
their lateral and dorsal attachment to the integument in worms
are given as distinctive. But we generally find the locomotor
muscles of animals connected with the locomotive organs, wher-
ever these may be situated. So in Pecten we find that the main .
locomotor muscles are attached laterally to the shell, that being
its principal organ of locomotion; and in Cephalopods we find
them on the sides and back, as well as ventrally, so that the man-
tle may be used as a locomotive organ. On the other hand, many
worms, like Aphrodite, Lepidonotus, many leeches, Trematodes,
and other worms, both high and low, have their locomotive organs
as truly ventral as those of Gastropods. ‘In the Mollusk the
tegumentary envelope is prolonged, and oftentimes continuous,
forming a sac or mantle, inclosing a conspicuous cavity, and pro-
tecting the gills.” This is, indeed, a valuable character, but not
accurately stated, for the mantle does not always form a “cavity,”
and is often nearly or quite abortive, and the gills are often situ-
ated on the back or sides, as in the Nudibranchs. But in this
character the Brachiopods agree with the Mollusks, and not with
the worms. “In the worm the digestive canal is straight, rarely
convoluted, and suspended freely in the perivisceral cavity.” “In
the Mollusk, the intestine is always convoluted, not suspended
freely in the perivisceral cavity, but intimately blended, or united
with other organs.” The intestine varies immensely in both
groups, according to the food of the species, and cannot be prop-
erly used as a character for separating two sub-kingdoms. Among
Sipunculoid Worms (as stated on p. 26) the intestine is generally
very long and greatly convoluted, and may terminate either ante-
riorly or posteriorly.

In most Nemerteans, Planarians, and Trematode worms the
intestine is not “ freely suspended,” but firmly united to the other
organs and the tegumentary system. “In Vermes there is a
peculiar depuratory apparatus characteristic of all. In the Annu-
lata this apparatus takes the shape of bilaterally symmetrical
tubes, in pairs, opening externally and communicating with the
perivisceral caviity, by distinct independent infundibuliform ori-
fices. In the Mollusca, with the exception of certain Cephalo-
poda, nothing of the kind is found, and where such communi-

Scientific Inielligence. 156

cation does exist between the organs and the surrounding me-
dium, it is by means of simple orifices in the walls of the cavity.”
The “depuratory apparatus” of “Vermes” is so diverse in
structure and position in the different groups, as to render it
very questionable whether these organs are homologous in the dif-
ferent orders. Moreover, there is still so much to learn concern-
ing both the proper vascular circulation and the “ depuratory
apparatus” of ordinary Mollusca, and the connection of both with
the exterior, that it is very unsafe to base generalizations on neg-
ative evidence of this kind. Even now, the utmost diversity of
opinion exists, among the leading European anatomists, concern-
ing the character of these organs in the commonest Mollusks, some
asserting and others denying the existence of external vascular
connections, lacunz, capillaries, etc. It should also be considered
that no “segmental organs” have yet been detected in the nearest
allies of the Annelids, the Crustacea, although the two classes
agree so closely in nearly all other respects that no one has been
able, as yet, to frame strictly distinctive diagnoses for them.
Nevertheless. the existence of the infundibuliform organs in Brach-
iopods is certainly one of their most remarkable characters; and
also one of the strongest analogies with the Annelids which they
possess.

The character of the nervous system of Brachiopods, according
to the author’s own statements, is quite as much like that of a
degraded mollusk as like that of a degraded worm, and has no
special resemblance whatever to that of any of the true Annelids,
with which the author wishes to compare them. We may as well
compare it with the nervous system of a Lamellibranch, without
the pedal and posterior ganglia (for which there is no use), as
with that of an Annelid destitute of the ventral series of ganglia.
“In the Annulata, with the exception of the Discophora, the
generative products are set free in the perivisceral cavity, receiv-
ing from the fluid therein contained certain nourishment.” An-
other notable exception is found in the common earth-worms, and
their allies, which have a distinct oviduct and male organ, in the
median line beneath, and, like many leeches, lay eggs enclosed in
capsules, not unlike those of many mollusks. Other exceptions
also occur in the Annelids, while among the Cestodes, Trematodes,
Nematodes, and Turbellaria, the oviduct is usually single and
connected directly with the ovary, as in most Mollusca. But in
Polyps and many common Fishes, etc., the generative products
are discharged into the perivisceral cavity, as in most Chetopod
Annelids. This is obviously a character of small importance,
hardly sufficient to characterize even the several orders of Anne-
lids. In the Mollusca, “with the exception of the Octopoda, the
oviduct is single.” Many other exceptions occur, in the Chitons,
Lamellibranchs, etc. “ Among the Mollusks, even when devoid of
a shell in the adult, the embryo early develops a shell composed of
one or two pieces.” This is not the case in many Cephalopods
and Pteropods.

157 Geology and Natural History.

From this summary 1t will be seen that not one of the characters
given to worms is, properly speaking, characteristic, or diagnostic,
of the Vermes, as a whole, and few of them can be applied to
more than a single order, while many of them are common to the
worms and various other invertebrates, belonging to diverse
classes and branches, including Mollusca. The same remarks
apply to most of the additional characters given to Vermes, on pp.
58,59. Some of the latter are even more useless, as distinctive of
Vermes. Thus they are said to have “an extensive vascular sys-
tem, containing a colored fluid representing the pseudo-hemal
system.” This has not usually been given as a character for all
Vermes,” but merely for the higher Annelids ; but it does not hold
good even within those limits, for there are many Chetopod
Annelids, belonging to several different families, that are totally
destitute of pseudo-hzemal vessels, but have only one fluid, which
fills the perivisceral cavity, (Aphlebina, Polycirrus, G'lycera, ete.),
and yet some of these genera belong to families in which other
genera have a complete system of vessels, (see also Morse’s quota-
tion from Claperéde, p. 25). The possession of “ chitinous out-
growths, either as scales, plates, hairs, or spines” is a character
that applies only to a part of the true Annelids, most leeches and
many Sipunculoids, as well as most of the Helminths (except in
the embyos of some) being destitute of such appendages. In fact
most of these characters are no more characteristic of worms, as a
group, than the presence of a shell is characteristic of Mollusca.

These facts are brought forward, not for the purpose of refuting
Prof. Morse’s views concerning the position of Brachiopoda,
which, if established at all, must rest on other and better founda-
tions, but to show how vague are his definitions of ‘“ Vermes,” and
how indefinite his ideas as to what a worm really is. The difficulty
of defining the heterogeneous group of “ Vermes” would be greatly
increased by adding to it the Brachiopods and Polyzoa, as the
author proposes. Nor can he better the matter, by separating
the “ Vermes” from the rest of the Articulata, and calling the
group a “sub-kingdom,” as some other writers have alreany
done. In fact, there is far greater difference between the Annelids
and lower worms (Helminths), than between the Annelids and
Crustacea. These two last classes approximate so closely in
structure, in some of their forms, that it has become a matter of
extreme difficulty to find diagnostic characters for separating
them, and few greater absurdities have been proposed in classifica-
tion, in modern times, than to separate them in two “ sub-king-
doms” or branches. On the same basis every class of animals
might be made a “ sub-kingdom.”

Another feature of the arguments presented demands attention
from those who may wish to form an impartial judgment of them.
The author naturally takes great pains in every case to point out
all the resemblances between the organs of worms and those of
Brachiopods that he compares, but he does not always allude to
the differences. Thus, on p. 11, he compares the elongated

Screntific Intelligence. 158

caudal segments of Annelids, like Pectinaria and Sabelluria, with
the peduncle of Brachiopods, but he does not mention the fact
that in the former the anal orifice is at the end of the caudal seg-
ment, which is bent forward, and that this elongation is to facili-
tute the discharge of the feces ; while the peduncle of Brachiopods
is imperforate, does not contain the intestine, and is essentially an
organ of attachment. The fabrication of tubes by the agglutina-
tion of sand with a mucous secretion, in Lingula, is a character
of trivial importance, for many soft bodied species of nearly all
classes of invertebrates, whether Protozoa, Radiata, Mollusca, or
Articulata, do the same thing. On p. 28, the identity of the
cirri of Brachiopods and Annelids is asserted, but he has not men-
tioned that in the latter these organs are genuine gills, with a
complicated capillary vascular circulation, which has not been
shown to exist in the former. So of the pallial membranes of
Brachiopods and the collar of Annelids, he has shown their points
of resemblance, but has largely ignored their great differences in
structure, relations, and function. We would also remind our
readers that a liberal use of printers-ink on diagramatic cuts, like
those on page 21, may serve to conceal differences, as well as to
show resemblances.

The facts in regard to the embryology of the Brachiopods,
which are brought out by Prof. Morse in this and in a subsequent
memoir, are of great interest and importance, and do, indeed, show
remarkable points of resemblance between the embryos and larvee
of Brachiopods and of certain worms. A. E, V.

18. Occurrence of Gigantic Cuttle-fishes on the coast of New-
foundland ; by A. E. Verrtm1.—Considerable popular interest has
been excited by several articles that have recently been published
and extensively circulated in the newspapers of Canada and the
United States, in regard to the appearance of gigantic “squids”
on the Newfoundland coast. Having been so fortunate as to
obtain, through the kindness of Prof. 8. F. Baird, the jaws and
other parts of two of these creatures, and, through the courtesy of
Dr. J. W. Dawson, photographs of portions of two other speci-
mens, I have thought it worth while to bring together, at this
time, the main facts respecting the several specimens that have
been seen or captured recently, so far as I have been able to collate
them, reserving for a future article the full descriptions and figures
of the jaws and other portions, now in my possession.

We now have reliable information concerning five different ex-
amples of these monsters that have appeared within a short period,
at Newfoundland. (1). A specimen found floating at the surface,
at the Grand Banks, in October, 1871, by Captain Campbell, of the
schooner B. D. Haskins, of Gloucester, Mass. It was taken on
board and part of it used for bait. Dr. A. S. Packard has given,
in the American Naturalist, vol. vii, p. 91, Feb., 1873, all the facts
that have been published in regard to this individual. But its
jaws have since been sent to the Smithsonian Institution, and are
now in my hands to be described and figured. They were thought

159 Geology and Natural History.

by Professor Steenstrup, who saw a photograph of them, to belong
to his Architeuthis monachus, which inhabits the northern coasts
of Europe, but is still very imperfectly known. The horny jaw or
beak from this specimen is thick and strong, nearly black; it is
acute at the apex, with a decided notch or angle on the inside,
about *75 of an inch from the point, and beyond the notch is a
large prominent angular lobe. The body of the specimen from
which this jaw was taken is stated to have measured 15 feet in
length and 4 feet 8 inches in circumference. The arms were mu-
tilated, but the portions remaining were estimated to be 9 or 10
feet long, and 22 inches in circumference, two being shorter than
the rest. It was estimated to weigh 2000 pounds.

(2). A large individual attacked two men, who were in a small
boat, in Conception Bay, and two of the arms which it threw
across the boat were cut off with a hatchet, and brought ashore.
Full accounts of this adventure, written by Mr. M. Harvey, have
been published in many of the newspapers.* One of the severed
arms, or a part of it, was preserved in the museum at St. John,
and a photograph of it is now before me. This fragment repre-
sents the distal half of one of the long tentacular-arms, with its ex-
panded terminal portion covered with suckers, 24 of which are
larger, in two rows, with the border not serrate, but 1°25 inch in
diameter; the others are smaller, very numerous, with the edge
supported by a serrated calcareous ring. The part of the arm pre-
served measured 19 feet in length, and 3°5 inches in circumference,
but wider, “ like an oar,” and 6 inches in circumference, near the
end where the suckers are situated; but its Jength, when entire,
was estimated at 42 feet.t ‘The other arm was destroyed and no
description was made, but it was said to have been 6 feet long and
10 inches in diameter; it was evidently one of the eight shorter
sessile arms. The estimate given for the length of the “body” of
this creature (60 feet) was probably intended for the entire length,
including the arms.

(3). A specimen was found alive in shallow water, at Coomb’s
Cove, and captured. Concerning this one I have seen only news-
paper accounts. It is stated that its body measured ten feet in
length and was “nearly as large round as a hogshead ” (10 to 12
feet) ; its two long arms (of which only one remained) were forty-
two feet in length and “ as large as a man’s wrist ;” its short arms
were six feet in length, but about nine inches in diameter, “ very
stout and strong ;” the suckers had aserrated edge. The color was
reddish. The loss of one long arm and the correspondence of the
other in size to the one amputated from No. 2, justifies a suspic-
ion that this was actually the same individual that attacked the
boat. But if not, it was probably one of the same species, and of
about the same size.

* Also in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, January, 1874, with a
wood-cut of the arm. ‘

+ Doubtless these long arms are very contractile and changeable in length like
those of the ordinary squids. é'

Scientific Intelligence. 160

(4). A pair of jaws and two of the suckers were recently for-
warded to me from the Smithsonian Institution. These were re-
ceived from Rey. A. Munn, who writes that they were taken from
a specimen that came ashore at Bonavista Bay; that it measured
thirty-two feet in length (probably the entire length, including
more or less of the arms); and about six feet in circumference.
This jaw is large and broad, but much thinner than that of No. 1,
and without the deep notch and angular lobe seen in that speci-
men. It probably belongs to the Architeuthis dux of Steenstrup,
or at least to the same species as the jaw figured by Dr. Packard.

(5). A smaller specimen, captured in December, in Logic Bay,
about three miles from St. John, in herring nets. Of this I have
a description in a letter to Dr. Dawson, from M. Harvey, Esq.,
who has also published a brief account of it in the “ Morning
Chronicle,” of St. John. The letter is acompanied by two photo-
graphs of the specimen: one showing the entire body, somewhat
mutilated anteriorly; the other showing the head with the ten
arms attached. The body of this specimen was over seven feet
long, and between five and six feet in circumference; the caudal
fin was twenty-two inches broad, but short, thick, and emarginate
posteriorly on each side, the end of the body being acute; the
two long tentacular-arms were twenty-four feet in length, and two
and a half inches in circumference, except at the broader part near
the end; the tips slender and acute; the largest suckers 1°25 inch
in diameter, with serrated edges; the eight short arms were each
six feet long ; the two largest were ten inches in circumference at
base; the others were 9, 8 and 7 inches. These short arms taper
to slender acute tips, and each bears about 100 large, bell-shaped
suckers, with serrated margins. Each of the long arms bear,
about 160 suckers on the broad terminal portion, all of which
are denticulated; the largest ones, which form two regular alter
nating rows, of twelve each, are about an inch in diameter.
There is also an outer row of much smaller suckers, alternating
with the large ones, on each margin; the terminal part of these
arms is thickly covered with small suckers: and numerous similar
small suckers are crowded on that portion of the arms where the
enlargement begins, before the commencement of the rows of
large suckers. The arrangement of the suckers is nearly the same
as on the long arm of No. 2, but in the latter the terminal por-
tion of the arm, beyond the large suckers, as shown in the photo-
graphs, is not so long, tapering, and acute, but this may be
due to the different conditions of the two specimens. It is proba-
ble that this was a young specimen of the same species as No. 2.

From the facts known at present, it appears probable that all
these specimens, and several others that have been reported at
various times from the same region, are referable to two species ;
one (probably Architeuthis monachus) represented only by the
first of those enumerated above, and having a more elongated
form of body and stouter jaws; the second (probably A. dua)
represented by Nos. 2 to 5, above described, having a short,

161 Geology and Natural History.

thick, massive body, and broad, but comparatively thin jaws,
which are algo different in form. Some of the differences in size
and proportions, and in the suckers, observed among the four
specimens referred to the latter species, may be due to sex, for
the sexes differ considerably in these characters in all known
cuttle-fishes.

19. Revision of the Echini; by ALExanpDER Agassiz, Part
ill, 4to, with 45 plates. Illustrated Catalogue of the Museum of
Comparative ZLodlogy. Cambridge, Mass. 1873.—This excellent
work is profusely illustrated by unique plates, a large part of which
have been made by different photographic printing processes, di-
rectly from photographs of the specimens, and are of unrivalled
excellence. The Woodbury-type process, the Albert-type and the
Heliotype, have all been successfully employed, while superior
lithographs have also been used to some extent. Part iii. contains
detailed descriptions of all the known species, except those of the
east coast of North America, which were described in Part ii.
Such species are, however, referred to, in their proper systematic
places. Twenty- eight plates illustrate Part i ii; the remaining
seventeen relate to structure and belong to Part iv, but are issued
in advance of the text, owing to the loss of the MSS., drawings,
and some of the plates, by the great Boston fire, in November,
1872. A. E. V.

20. The Marine Mammals of the Northwestern Coast of North
America, described and illustrated, together with an account of
the American Whalefishery ; by Cuartes M. Scammon, Captain
U.S. Revenue Marine. San Francisco: John H Carmany & Co.
4to.—The advance copies of the plates of this work, that we have
seen, are highly satisfactory, and considering the well known ability
and enthusiasm of the author, we anticipate that the book, when
completed, will be a valuable contribution to science, in a depart-
ment which is still very imperfectly understood, and of great im-
portance economically. The work deserves, and should receive,
the support of all who are interested in promoting the study of
Natural History. It is to be illustrated by thirty or more litho-
graphic plates, and is offered to subscribers at the very low cost
of ten dollars. ADs

,

—_ iors os i ~ a —-
Se eee ee ee ee ee ee

WAV AVA NA AUANE

— ‘a A a) ee) ie [ \PAN AI\A AA lal \_\ a Ve M ‘ANA AN a\is An Eah\ ate AA The WEN Bat) -\a BX \
ceria RCN Aa reat Maen neat (titty Nat y ANT ERE ne
sdanmaanacounaaee ttt anna i Pel epererecntn uti
FARA aaa nnhin anna aman” AAaAAANAnAn HARAAA SAAR Gane i AAA
REE anna nanblnntannad a! AMA NNN AN AANA AAA
NAAN ARAN AAS are nn an AA ANA EIAAINA Anna A\ an AAW "
anonnneas A ee Ann, ar nega DARAAA Ae ANAAARE: NARA: Aw \ aa h ‘ AA An
Pe anaatnteOR hg ROMANCE reece AYN nti peeuttin

aooat A AnghaAe ne

Beat NM ana aaarantt iN
Anannnarnn innate aprrnnttnnn’ uA, nina RRsat
emer thatttt went mention attnaaat vi

yy vate Pesenercn nt hahha Mes NN oe et npn
NAAR AAACAAAA AAS AAAAY NANO P AA
AN ah _Tetnatansynhal Nanak aROU ASRS a NN a NALA Aut uty

a A AA AA al.\ A Ar AR AAR AAA AAAAW? SI AARAA ‘
AARAAAAAAMRAA aAha as nanAnear” A AN AMARAAAAA, A AAU ana ANARA ANABAN nan Ais “pagaaah sen “ani
oan nannnnnNanins oat Y sauna ARansAnnen aA nein na aieagll
AAC CAAA AMANAGN A * nn MANNA “anhAans panes san a aasoa Conn naaeataat
AAA AAAARAAAAANAS es drt MN sate Pett iw On NN mar

SNARDINATING A Snlaniatnl A AA NAN AAp HN Aan Nn RAR vn ANA ANAAAAAA aa
PAY AA a\NA AARRAA Wis NN Wh ne fa hah i) MAN an AAA AA MANAAnanel ants
AAA anAaphabbORiinbncnlt | Naha hee MARANA rotten a

BAARGSEAAARAW AARAR
OO nannanantnAhAAnnaAnanAl nn PARRA TA
) ROAARARAR. AAR ares (aiay ANANSI RAN NAAR A A rat one

a
Apaaaln

NON GAPSONAAAMO™ Aiabien
ih panier wiMyeattrvenettsoot tN tion

AoA ae VAR PRN IPD EN Pw AAR NA

IAIAA aa \a\ ane
ms ronan Aa
A‘

a - Favs, PAN Real Ae
Be Pon la OG ise AR a fA NAR pe ok tae ae PRO AUBURN es | {2
PS fi, Altar iN es Win So: A Ane AR

a eae ANAwnnrarn nntanngaahnnnnneas act

A ANANDA a aAa ann, A
A MA AAA AAAAae Nn aAAAaANN, ct roe wv nearer es

a AAA, AAA AAR alaaane

pe MeN MAN Yanna n anenenes pal en

A AAA Me ARAAAN, RANA AAA annnann’ rs

UA Wn oe Yo Aeron Aaa ea Agel

| er P AAA ar yaaa Aine AAA NAMA AAR AAAAE Naas AA
P f MAaal | ANN taRAPae il AA me ;

SARA

are

| \
4 || a yt 5 We bebe, |
wy AM = VATA AE AIATALA i) P AA AVA la
oo VoWe ¢ ae \t I a fe Mt yA ae Y Par AA
‘pe \ lair aa {A 7 Vm ETNA):
4 \ ia t ; rer :
\V 3 f q 4 A}
y

pRARRAA

aN
nAWAANN

ann

fannie >
ahha’ AARASARA BAAR RS AAA

aANPeuerere it :
Were o om tt wn

bene ae
‘eet nnn = oF

1} NAM

rena rt ANY

Nirvan nina nasa OE nnn
nner era Myra Os eae
irrrnanettte AA Ann NANA ae AAA: pANAARA me NN

AAR GA wy “aN nnn |
ssa ys priate one tana

AAA en
wee AANA paren enn aac
a Alin AAA \ ‘ AA Aneta MeN AA AA AVA a

par NAAARAR MARANA Ae TAN NANNY ANNAN

ae

Wat WYAAAAANalar.
Wane nnn Raaant ae arn

IANA eval i
Ja Ae AAAA aa 87 MATA Al f Ai ny NAAR A NAIVE Aan wel
RAAT CAR AA SAAN ee ce MT lA a AAA AAC AY ‘a Naan Ane Bin ACN

NIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES

fl

ii su i

3 9088

i