fours; sometimes he goes up into the trees to feed on fruit, and at night he sleeps in a large tree. When the female is pregnant, the male builds a nest where she is confined, and which she abandons as soon as her young one is born. The Gorilla does not beat its breast like a drum. It utters a kind of short, sharp bark when enraged, and its ordinary cry is of plaintive nature.

"With respect to its ferocity, the hunters have a proverb. Leave a Ngina alone, and it will leave you alone.' When it is at bay and wounded it will attack man, like the Stag, the Elephant, and other animals naturally timid. But as it makes this attack on all fours, the hunters, who are themselves as nimble as apes, often escape from it, as men escape from the charge of an Elephant. I have seen a man who had been wounded by a Gorilla; his wrist was crippled, and the marks of the teeth were visible. He told me that the Gorilla seized his wrist and dragged it into its mouth, it was contented with having done this, and went off. The nearest approach to an erect posture which the Gorilla attains to is by supporting itself by holding on to the branches. When I asked the people of Ngumbi whether a man had ever been killed by a Gorilla, they said that their fathers had spoken of such a thing, but that nothing of the kind had happened within the memory of any body living.

"Such is the evidence of the native habits of the Gorilla. I could not find that it differed in any important respect from the Chimpanzee, except in its superior size and strength, and in its being certainly more formidable when wounded. But when I asked the hunters, which was the more dangerous, the Leopard or the Gorilla, they replied, the Leopard.'

“I can make one or two positive assertions from my own experience. Although I never succeeded in seeing a Gorilla in its wild state, I can assert, that it travels on all fours, for I have seen the tracks of its four feet over and over again. I can assert that it runs away from man, for I have been near enough to hear one running away from me; and I can assert that the young Gorilla is as docile as the young Chimpanzee in a state of captivity, for I have seen both of them in a state of captivity. I have also seen the lying-in nests both of the Chimpanzees and Gorillas; the latter being a little larger of the two. The Chimpanzee I may observe has the character of being more intelligent than his big brother."

Such are Mr. Reade's deductions from what he could collect on the spot, and, we think, they must be allowed to be formed for the most

part on satisfactory data, and to be at all events a near approxima tion to the truth. But what shall we say now of M. Du Chaillu? It may be recollected by our readers that the view we took of his narrative when discussing it at some length in the first volume of this Journal* was not of a very flattering character to the author, although at that time we did not suspect him of directly intentional deceit. But after what Mr. Reade has stated, and considering all that has since taken place, we fear that, whatever the Geographical Society and its distinguished President may say, we must agree with Mr. Reade in "putting M. Du Chaillu's evidence aside as worthless" and in regretting that a man" who has had better opportunities than any "one of learning the real nature of the Gorilla, should have been "induced to sacrifice truth to effect, and the esteem of scientific men "to a short-lived popularity."

XLVII.-DE BLAINVILLE'S OSTEOGRAPHY.

OSTEOGRAPHIE OU DESCRIPTION ICONOGRAPHIQUE COMPARÉE DU SQUELETTE ET DU SYSTÈME DENTAIRE DES MAMMIFERES RECENTS ET FOSSILES POUR SERVIR DE BASE A LA ZOOLOGIE ET A LA GEOLOGIE, par H. M. Ducrotay de Blainville. Paris, 1839-64, 4 vol. texte et 4 vol. Atlas.

THE great work of the late Prof. de Blainville on the Osteology of recent and fossil Mammals, which was interrupted by his death, is now brought to a close, though we cannot say completed, since no one has been found to carry out to its end, the great and laborious task undertaken by the author, to which he devoted the best years of his life, and, as we believe, not a small portion of his income. The first volume of M. de Blainville's work is prefaced by a long essay by M. Nicaro on the life and labours of the deceased Naturalist, and a useful catalogue of his many publications and papers. The main text of the work, which follows and is continued through three other similar volumes, consists of what we should rather call a series of Monographic essays upon certain groups of Quadrumana, Chiroptera, Insectivora, Carnivora, Proboscidea, Pachydermata,

*See Nat. Hist. Rev. 1861, p. 288.

Ruminantia, Sirenia and Edentata. Had the author lived these, no doubt, would have been worked up together, so as to form a complete whole. These essays are illustrated by an accompanying series of very beautifully executed lithographic folio plates, altogether some 320 in number,-forming in the whole by far the best series of illustrations of recent and fossil Mammals in existence. The work is indeed-in spite of its much-to-be-lamented imperfections-a most valuable one to Naturalists; and from the convenient collocation of the fossil forms in their natural places among the recent genera, will be particularly serviceable to Paleontologists. It is of course, from its very nature, expensive; but no scientific library can be deemed complete without it.

XLVIII.-REPORTS ON THE BRITISH MUSEUM.

(1.) ACCOUNTS "OF THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDED THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 1864," &c. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed, 28th April, 1864.

(2.) COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE TREASURY AND THE BRITISH MUSEUM ON THE SUBJECT OF PROVIDING ADDITION ACCOMMODATION FOR THE SEVERAL COLLECTIONS BELONG

ING TO THAT ESTABLISHMENT, &c. Ordered by the House of
Commons to be printed, 11th of March and 5th of April, 1864.

PROFESSOR OWEN'S Report on the condition of the "Departments of Natural History in the British Museum," which is given in the first of the two Returns relating to the establishment in Great Russell Street lately presented to Parliament, tells us that, although no additional space has been provided for the accommodation of this already over-crowded branch of the National Collections, a multitude of valuable additions has been made to it during the past year. The number of entries on the register of these collections has amounted to no less than 102,474, and as two or more objects of the same species are often marked by a common number, the actual number of specimens received during the year 1863 was still larger. In Prof. Owen's last Annual Report, which is given in our volume

66

for last year, it will be recollected that special reference was made to the great and urgent necessity for more space for the Natural History Collections. The same complaint of want of accommodation is frequently repeated in this year's Report. "The stuffed and "exhibited series of Mammalia are mostly in a state of preserva"tion-some have suffered from the effects of overcrowding. The "want of space precludes instructive arrangement of the class." *** "The stuffed and exhibited series of birds are in a state of pre"servation-but now are so crowded in some cases as to take "from the facility of examining individual specimens." Again, as regards fossils, we read-"The exhibited specimens now begin "to be in so crowded a state of arrangement as to affect in some cases the facility of access for scientific examination and comparison." But it is useless to multiply extracts, which after all prove only what is already notorious to all that are in any degree acquainted with the Natural History Departments of the British Museum. It is quite certain that, while the collections of this branch are augmented every year in an increasing ratio, no additional space is granted to them. All applications to the Treasury on the part of the Trustees for further accommodation for these collections are refused on the plea that the whole subject of the additional accommodation required by all the collections has to be considered. The real fact is that, as most of our readers are aware, the Government has long ago made up its mind to remove the Natural History collections altogether to a separate establishment, and that they only delay the execution of the matter in the hope that those who do not coincide with their views on this subject will be driven into complaisance by sheer inability to effect anything in an opposite direction. And this change of opinion has, we believe, already come to pass to a great extent.

A few years ago most of the leaders of science were certainly opposed to the removal of the Natural History Collections from their present site. The scientific men who were examined before Mr. Gregory's celebrated Committee in 1860 mostly objected to the Government plan. South Kensington, although the chosen abode of the ministerial patrons of "Science and Art," is certainly little loved by the real cultivators of the former; and the rule of Sir Wentworth Dilke and Mr. Cole appears to be a bad exchange

See N. H. R. 1863, p. 549.

even for that of the Trustees of the British Museum and Mr. Panizzi. But now, we believe, the tide of opinion sets rather the other way. The Government is evidently determined to do nothing whatever to relieve the scientific collections from their embarrassment, while they remain in their present position. The Trustees of the British Muscum themselves, although originally much opposed to the removal, have formally recorded their acceptance of the propositions made to them by the Treasury. And even the House of Commons, though it rejected the Bill to enable the Trustees to remove the collections in 1862, has recently voted the sum of £58,000 for the completion of the purchase of the land at South Kensington upon which the new Institution is to be built.

Under these circumstances we look upon this question, which has been so long a matter of discussion amongst Naturalists, as to all intents and purposes settled; and we only allude to it in order to record our conviction that, looking to the best interests of science, it has been settled in the most advantageous way. True it is that during the year or two that may be occupied by the removal of the collections from Bloomsbury to Kensington little will be done in our national collection of Natural History towards the progress of science. But this retardation will, we have little doubt, be more than compensated for by the increased efficiency which will result from the attainment of an independent status. Times were when it would have perhaps been impossible to obtain national support for a National Museum of Natural History. But the case is now otherwise. No civilized nation refuses to acknowledge the claims of such purely scientific institutions to public support, and we see them established and flourishing independently in every other capital in Europe. It is not likely, therefore, that the legislature of a people which claims to be the foremost in the rank of nations would reject claims fully admitted by the rest of the civilized world.

With regard to the proposed position of the new National Museum of Natural History-South Kensington, we know, is often objected to as being so far from the centre of the metropolis, and in particular, from the dense population of the eastern districts. But then, we must recollect that we are dealing with a National, not with a Metropolitan institution, and that to the majority of visitors to London, South Kensington is not less accessible than Bloomsbury. Let us consider, also, the great National establishment of Botany at Kew.

In 1863, as we learn from Sir William Hooker's Report, no