speedily be rendered tame, as the elephant for instance. Again, (animals may be divided) in another way, for all tame races are also wild, as horses, oxen, pigs, sheep, goats and dogs. Some animals are able to make a loud noise, some are mute, others are possessed with a voice, and of these latter some have a language, others are incapable of uttering distinct sounds; some are garrulous, others are silent, some are songsters, others are unable to sing; but to sing and talk most at the season of copulation is common to all birds. Some animals frequent the fields as the wood-pigeon, others the hills as the hoopoe, others live with man as the pigeon. Again, some are very prone to venery, as the tribe of partridges and cocks, others preserve chastity, as the crow family which seldom copulate. Again, some animals are given to defend themselves, others to keep watch against the approach of danger; in the first class I include such as either attack other animals or defend themselves when injured; by the second class I mean those which have in themselves something which serves as a means of avoiding suffering. In disposition animals differ in the following particulars; some are gentle and demure and not stubborn, as the ox, while others are passionate, stubborn, and stupid, like the wild boar; others are sagacious and timid like the stag and the hare; others mean and insidious like serpents; others liberal, brave, and noble, like the lion; others generous, fierce, and insidious, like the wolf; by noble I mean that which is descended from a good race, by generous that which does not degenerate from its own nature. And some animals are cunning and full of mischief, like the fox; others full of spirit, loving, and fawning, like the dog; others gentle, and readily tamed, like the elephant; others are modest, and always on the watch like the goose; others are envious and fond of display, like the peacock. But of living things man alone is capable of deliberating; many animals share in memory and ability to learn, but no other being except man is capable of reminiscence. Of each particular kind of animals, both with respect to their 6 * The Lion is said to be εὐγενής, the Wolf γενναῖος. The former term may be properly rendered "noble;" it is not so easy to give a suitable translation of the latter Greek word. In the Rhetoric (ii. 15, § 3), Aristotle makes again the same distinction between these two terms-vyevns is "that which refers to excellence of birth,” yevvałoç “that which does not degenerate from its nature”— the English word generous,' though now not used in the sense attributed to Yevvaios, appears originally to have been sometimes so understood; its opposite quality degenerous' or degenerate," implies a falling from the original healthy and vigorous qualities that belong to the genus, (de, genus) and in this sense the expression degenerate' continues to be used; and while we can speak of a degenerate' breed of cattle, are unable, by the employment of the simple term 'generate,' or 'generous,' to express the opposite quality of an animal perpetuating its own vigorous characteristics to succeeding generations; M. Camus renders yevvaios by "vigoureux;" it may be remarked that the word " generous" has by some writers been applied to animals, as "a generous pack of hounds"-or "a generous stud"; we hear too "of generous wine." Does not this epithet imply what Aristotle means by yɛvvałog, viz. "that which will not degenerate." dispositions and modes of life we intend to speak hereafter with more precision.* XVI. THE ATLANTIS HYPOTHESIS IN ITS BOTANICAL ASPECT.By Professor Oliver. A PERUSAL, some few months ago, of certain passages in Professor Heer's important essay on the climate and vegetation of the Tertiary period, induced me to investigate rather carefully the relations between the Tertiary and some existing Floras, especially with reference to the hypothesis advanced by Professors Heer and Unger, that during the Miocene period there existed an Atlantic junction between Although English Naturalists appear to have given little attention to the study of Aristotle and the Natural History of the ancients generally, the subject has not escaped the notice of our German friends; on the contrary, careful enquiry would no doubt disclose much valuable pertinent matter. There are several published treatises which bear on the subject of Aristotle's Zoological Works, the titles of some of which are here added, though we confess we have only been able to consult a very few of them. Beckmann, J., De historia naturali veterum libellus. Petrop. et Gotting. 1766. Petri Artedi Synonymia Piscium Græca et Latina emendata, &c. Lips. 1789. Ueber die von Aristoteles beschriebenen Gattungen und Arten von Krebsen. Berl. Mag. 1807, p. 163.-Isis, 1818, iv. p. 1453. Billerbeck, H. L. Jul. De Strigibus ab Aristotele, Plinio, cæteraque Scriptorum Veterum grege Commemoratis. Hildeshem. 1809. Köhler, J. Herm. de, Aristoteles, de Molluscis Cephalopodibus (πepi rŵv paλakíwv) Werber, W. J. A., Aristoteles Verdienst um die wissenschaftliche Bearbeitung der Wiegman, A. F. A., Observationes Zoologica Critice in Aristotelis Historiam Animalium. Lips. 1826. Isis, 1827, xii. p. 1078. Müller, J. Ueber den glatten ai des Aristoteles und über die Verschiedenheiten unter den Haifischen u. Rochen in der Entwickel, des Eies. Berl. 1842. Franzius, A. von., Aristoteles' Vier Bücher die Theile der Thiere. Griechisch und Deutsch und mit Sacherklärenden Anmerkungen. 1853. Meyer, J. B., Dissertatio de Principiis Aristotelis in distributione animalium adhibitis. Berol. 1854. · Aristoteles Thierkunde; ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Zoologie, Physiologie und alten Philosophie. Berl. 1855. Rose, Valentin., De Aristotelis librorum ordine et auctoritate Commentatio. Berol. 1854. Thiel, H. De Zoologicorum Aristotelis librorum ordine ac distributione, imprimis de librorum Epi Ewwv popíwv primo. (Ex program, gymnas. Elisabet. 1855, Edito repetitum.) Vratislavia, Gosohorsky, 1855. Lenz, H. O., Zoologie der alten Griechen und Römer, deutsch in Auszügen aus deren Schriften, nebst Anmerkungen. Gotha, 1856. "Recherches sur le Climat et la Végétation du Pays Tertiare," 1861. Europe and America. With regard to this question I have been led to differ from these authors, and am confirmed in the view advanced by Dr. Asa Gray* in reference to plants, and previously by Mr. Darwint with regard to animals, that the migrations resulting in a community of types in the tertiary beds of Europe and the present flora of the Eastern states of the North American continent, took place probably in a comparatively high latitude to the north of the Pacific ocean. In this short paper I propose to give the grounds upon which I think this opinion may be based. I shall embody further, some observations bearing upon the general and mutual relations of the North Temperate floras, with others of a critical character, which have suggested themselves by the comparisons I have had occasion to institute, referring to some of the determinations of fossil species in Professor Heer's “Flora Tertiaria Helvetiæ." Had I felt myself on more secure ground in touching upon questions intimately bound up with geological problems, I might have chosen to prefix the title of Professor Heer's work to this notice, and to have aimed at a more complete review of it than, in my inability to appreciate properly some of the more strictly geological features, I can venture upon. The data upon which my enquiries are based, are chiefly these. So far as the Tertiary Flora of Europe is concerned, I believe that the general aspect of the questions touched upon is not sensibly affected by confining myself almost exclusively to the materials furnished from Switzerland in the "Flora Tertiaria." The statistics of recent Floras rest upon Nyman's "Sylloge Flora Europææ," Mr. Bentham's "Hand-book of the British Flora," Mr. Black's Catalogue of Japanese Plants appended to Hodgson's Japan, A. Gray's " Manual” for the Northern, and Chapman's "Flora" for the Southern United States, Webb and Berthelot's "Hist. Nat. des îles Canaries," and minor papers. The Hookerian collections have been of essential service in the comparison of specimens and of recent with extinct forms. With regard to the basis upon which comparisons between recent and fossil (tertiary) floras should rest, I apprehend that the principal reliable results which are attainable in the present state of knowledge are, in the main, quite as likely to issue from comparisons of genera as of species. It is true, that in some cases, fossil remains suffice to enable the further step to be taken of tracing identical, analogous or representative specific forms in past and present floras; but these are rather exceptional, and from the necessity of attaching a primary importance to the character of the nervation, venation and form of leaves, which must often render even ordinal determination exceedingly uncertain, from the very fragmentary character, frequently, even of these imperfect data, and, farther, from our ignorance of types which, it may be assumed, are now extinct, I believe that we can best eliminate several sources of error by depending rather on generic than specific identifications or parallels. It may be truly Mem. Am. Acad. N.S., vol. vi. p. 377. † Voyage of Beagle. Ed. 1839, p. 151. 1 objected that the fossil is often referred first to the species, then to the genus, and not as in recent botany, first to the genus, then to the species; but recollecting how seldom fossil remains enable us to ascertain how far two forms may be removed in floral or in fruit structure, which resemble each other precisely in their leaves; seeing, moreover, that if the specific determination or analogy be correct, that of the genus must necessarily be so, while indeed, if the former be incorrect, the latter may yet hold good,-I cannot but think it the safer course in the discussion of the present question to confine myself to comparisons of genera solely. The case is widely different when we compare the species of recent floras with each other, inasmuch as here we deal usually with individual elements of a value much more nearly equal, and are thus in a position better able to appreciate the minor facts of recent migration and modification of type which such a collation might indicate, than it is possible we could be from the comparison of a recent with a fossil flora, or of two recent floras based upon their genera solely. In spite of their imperfection there can be little question, but that the most important problems of plant-distribution are to be solved only by a constant reference to fossil remains, and according as we compare existing with extinct floras of recent or of more remote geological date, shall we find that the comparison of species with species, of genus with genus, of order with order, and of sub-kingdom with sub-kingdom, have each their proper place and value in helping us to a right apprehension of the changes which in respect of plant-distribution our planet has experienced. In the case of the flora of the tertiary period, from the imperfect nature of the evidence upon which we must at present depend, and the circumstance that probably at least one-fifth or one-fourth of its generic types, referable with more or less probability to existing natural orders, are extinct or indeterminable, (exclusive of the various forms grouped under Phyllites, Antholites and Carpolithes), I believe that a comparison of specific forms is quite as calculated to mislead as reliably to inform; and although I regard Professor Heer's attempt to indicate the living analogues of Swiss tertiary plants in his tabulated enumeration as very able, yet I do not think the general results attained by it add to the issue of a generic correlation; while Professor Unger's catalogue of tertiary species and their North American representatives* appears to me overstrained in favour of the Atlantis hypothesis, and calculated to give a false impression. We must not, however, overlook the peculiar and qualifying circumstances, referred to above, under which the generic determination of not a few fossil species must be made:-that the reference of the fossil to a recent genus frequently depends less upon the recognition in the fossil, of any one essential character of such genus, than upon its resemblance to some single species or group of species of the genus in some one or two points of small importance, or of no importance at all, generically. Die Versunk. Insel Atlantis, p. 26. The character of venation often differs very materially in the same natural genus. Take, for instance, Liquidambar, one of the older generic types of Dicotyledons, and compare L, styraciflua, L. chinense, and L. Altingia, both in respect of form and venation of the leaves. The nervation and venation in Loranthus is very variable; also in South American species of Coussapoa. Compare C. calophylla, Pl., C. fontanesiana, Trec., (C. sylvatica, Pl.), and C. trinervia, Spr. Compare also the species of Styrax, and such a list might be indefinitely extended. I have not, in tabulating, restricted myself to fossil genera, the determination of which has been based upon indubitable evidence; though by attaching, in the table, p. 175, a numerical reference to several of the genera which appear doubtful, and which are remarked upon at the end of this paper, I have partly distinguished between those which, to the best of my judgment are to be depended upon, and those which should be accepted with more or less doubt. I say partly distinguished, for I have thus marked only about thirty genera, though I believe that fully one hundred of these generic determinations are more or less doubtful. In the notices which follow, all reference to Cryptogamous plants is omitted; partly, because with the exception of the vascular groups, the fossil data are almost valueless; partly, because I have myself but a very limited acquaintance with the most important of the vascular orders-Filices, and partly, because I believe they do not afford material additional evidence affecting the principal question discussed. I have introduced several statistical items of information which do not directly bear upon the dispersion of the tertiary flora and the hypotheses of Atlantic or Pacific migration, but these have appeared sufficiently interesting on independent grounds. I cannot claim for the numerical details anything like absolute accuracy, though I believe them to be trustworthy in the main. The Tertiary Flora of Europe; its general character, &c. This is admirably reviewed by Professor Heer in his essay on the climate and vegetation of the tertiary epoch. As this is separately published at a very moderate price I must refer to it for detailed information and confine myself here to principal features. The Swiss tertiary remains of Phænogamous plants, exclusive of "incertae sedis," are distributed through 80 natural orders, and about 196 genera, (Dicots. 160, Monocots. 36), of which 154 (Dicots. 133, Monocots. 21) are yet existing types. The total number of species of Phanerogamia is estimated at about 800, of which number nearly half are referred to nine or ten natural orders. These latter are as follows: The sequence of the above largest orders varies if the four stages of the tertiary deposits be separately considered. In the first and |