different zoological arrangements, and distinctly point out what are improvements, and what are mere alterations, proceeding from caprice, vanity, or a restless spirit for innovation. These alterations, changes, or improvements, or whatever they be, have done much to retard the progress and check the enthusiasm for natural history. I at one time thought that Cuvier, by his intimate and extensive knowledge of comparative anatomy, and by making it go hand in hand with the study of zoology, would have settled this restless anxiety for reform. But he seems to have placed too much confidence in structure, on the supposition that the structure regulated the intellectual powers, and what he calls the phenomena of organic life. That it does so to a certain extent, and, in many respects, is certainly true. Upon the supposition, however, of Aristotle, that the structure is formed to be subservient to the principle that animates it, and that the organs are accommodated to the powers or faculties of that principle, the characters of that principle, so far as they are indicated by dispositions, habits, and instincts, should not be overlooked; and especially as many animals of very different habits and instincts scarcely present any well-marked and obvious differences of structure, comparative anatomy falls here short of its object, and though it does much, we are apt to expect more from it than it performs. It can hardly predict from the structure and its organs the different instincts of the hare and the rabbit, or the different instincts of the common rook and the common crow. As you have admitted, and I think justly, both intellectual and active powers in animals, and both in some measure regulated through the medium of the animating principle, the different modes of its using the structure and the several organs over which it predominates, might form some important distinctions among the lower animals as well as man, where the difference of habit, genius, and manners, not the difference of structure and organs, chiefly occupy the attention of the novelist, divine, and civil historian. Mr Russel the surgeon, a great admirer of your works, was wondering lately how far the differences of character from disposition and habit might be added to the differences of character from structure and organs in zoological arrangements. He is not perhaps fully aware of the difficulties. In dead specimens, or in specimens from abroad, where the naturalist has never had an opportunity of observing them alive in their natural state, what can he do but confine his attention entirely to the structure, from which his knowledge of comparative anatomy will furnish him only with very general and vague ideas of the specific dispositions and habits. I am not such a master of zoological nomenclature as to form any judgment upon it, that would merit a moment of your attention.

"From the great pleasure and the quantity of information which I have derived from the perusal of a previous part of your valuable work, 1 proceed from page 437 to peruse the remainder, where I hope to glean some new ideas and instructions for myself, though, from my ignorance of the

subjects that follow, I can hardly presume to trouble you any more with my remarks, which must appear insignificant to a well informed naturalist. The only additional remark which I have to make at present is this, that in page 409 you infer the existence of taste in mollusca from their selection of food. Now I believe that even in many of the warm-blooded animals, it is rather the sense of smell than of taste that directs them in the choice of food. With much real esteem, and many thanks for the pleasure you have afforded, believe me, my dear Sir, yours most truly,

"JOHN BARCLAY."

When Dr Turton, the well-known conchologist, perused the Philosophy of Zoology, he wrote to Fleming :

"Dear Sir,-Allow me to return you my warmest thanks for the entertainment and instruction I have received from your very interesting work on Zoology.

"Thirty years and more have I been an anxious inquirer into the progress of natural science, and can safely say that, except from the works of Linné, I have never been so fully gratified. It is just what this department of science wanted: a brief but sufficiently comprehensive display of this attractive department of human knowledge. Lamark is too diffuse; Stewart is too confined. Your work ranks you not only among the scriptores feliciores, but among the fundatores.

แ

"I entreat to be admitted among your correspondents, and shall rejoice in a communication and exchange of what can be mutually serviceable to each other's pursuits and wishes.

"My cabinet, although extremely rich in rare and valuable exemplars of the southern coasts, is yet deficient in the modern discoveries of the north. Your Criopus anomalus I once possessed a specimen of, but accident has deprived me of it. Terebratula Cranium and Terebratula aurita, are subjects that I much covet, but am afraid they are too precious to hope for the possession of; yet would I exchange for them specimens of new discoveries which can only come from my own collections.

"My new and splendid work on the British Bivalves it is probable you have not seen. In the fire which lately took place at Nixon's, the Copperplate printer in London, my plates were destroyed; and as few impressions had been taken off, the copies are become extremely rare. What, however, remain, will, I trust, fall into the hands of true conchologists; and before they are all gone, I can offer a copy, for a copy of your own work, to send to my son in America-and some specimens of the Criopus anomalus, Terebratula Cranium, and Tereb. aurita. Any other of the northern varieties which you might think acceptable, I shall not only receive with pleasure, but endeavour to compensate for in exchange-if you will favour me with your list of desiderata. If you make a general collection of

British shells, I think I can furnish you with a dozen, or nearly so, of new and beautiful subjects, not yet edited, and of course inter rariores. Oblige me by an answer to this, as I am extremely anxious to establish a correspondence in Scotland, upon mutual principles of interest and science. I have the pleasure to be, my Dear Sir, yours truly and faithfully, "Torquay, Devonshire, July 1. 1823." The acquaintanceship thus begun, ripened into friendship between the learned, amiable, and enthusiastic, English conchologist and the pastor of Flisk.

WM. TURTON.

Shortly after the publication of the Philosophy of Zoology, Dr Fleming transmitted a set of papers to Professor Jameson's Journal, which attracted very great attention at the time, and which are still to be regarded as valuable contributions to Natural Science, and one of them as claiming the attention of all who are taken up with the important physico-theological subject with which it deals. The papers forming this set are severally entitled, "The Influence of Society in the Distribution of British Animals," "Remarks on Modern Strata," and "The Geological Deluge, as interpreted by Baron Cuvier and Professor Buckland, inconsistent with the Testimony of Moses and the Phenomena of Nature." These papers bear testimony to the closest habits of observation in the study of Natural History, to great discrimination, and to a rare capacity of induction. That on the Distribution of British Animals, called forth a reply from Dr Buckland in a letter to Professor Jameson, which was inserted in vol. xii. of the Phil. Journal. In the opening words Buckland says :—

"Allow me, through the medium of your Journal, to express my obligations to Dr Fleming for the handsome manner in which he has spoken of my Reliquiæ Diluvianæ in your last number, and for the mild and gentlemanly tone he has maintained, while expressing his opinions on certain points whereon he differs from me. I perfectly coincide with that eminent naturalist as to the expediency and the necessity of illustrating the history of the Fossil world, by the analogies afforded by the structure and habits of living plants and animals, and by the operations of nature now passing before us."

Business called Dr Fleming to London, and on his way south, he spent some time in Cambridge, where, in the absence of his friend Prof. Sedgewick, Dr Henslow shewed him much

kindness, took him to dinner in Jesus College, and led him to every thing of scientific interest in the university. When in London he wrote to Neill :—

"I have been at the Zoological Club, where I was introduced to all the leading men, and where I heard, for upwards of two hours, Mr Vigors preach on the affinities of birds. Of science there was little, but much that may be termed declamation. Nothing is the go here but quinary divisions, and groups returning into themselves. R. Brown promised to introduce me, but failed. I, however, have found in Mr Hope a most useful and intelligent friend. He speaks in the warmest manner of your kindness, and hopes to see you in town. The museum at the Indian House was open to me by Dr Horsfield, who seems an intelligent fellow. I was at the Royal Society, and heard an eloquent opinion of anatomical analysis by Dr Granville, on a mummy. He demonstrated the subject to have been a female, upwards of forty, to have borne several children, and to have died of diseased uterus and ovaria. Sir E. Home was in the chair. Last night I was at the Linnean, Sir J. E. Smith in the chair. Little was done of any moment, but I became acquainted with several new naturalists. Old Kirby pleases me much. On Friday, at the Geological, I met Buckland."

Dr Buckland's communication to Professor Jameson led not only to a reply by Dr Fleming, but to a full exposition of his views on the whole question of the Deluge, under the title quoted above. He experienced, however, some annoyance from Prof. Jameson's treatment of his MSS. To Neill he wrote in 1826 :

"N.B.—I have sent you my Reply to Buckland. When I left you for London I was almost satisfied that no reply was necessary. In London I became convinced of the impropriety of silence. But instead of a reply, I have taken up the subject in a new form-taken the bull by ears, and carried the war into the enemy's country. The public will now judge who is in the right, and as I feel no dread of the hierarchy, I will maintain my position until vanquished by truth. The notes contain the reply, so that the general reader may read them or not as he pleases. I wish the paper to be read in the Wernerian Society as early as convenient, and to be printed in the first No. of the Phil. Jour. I will converse with Prof. Jameson when over on this subject. He led me into the scrape by asking me to write the paper on the Influence of Society. I hope he will form the ring and let me have fair play. To my own prejudiced mind my arguments appear incontrovertible. I long to hear your opinion.”

Again, "My being curt, in some cases you point out, arose from my desire to shorten a long article. I think that even without the notes the Oxonian will have a hard morsel-to chew-with them the thing would have

been complete-but what can I do? The printer has a very poor opinion of my prudence, the editor has the prejudices of a professor in such full play, that he tries to screen a brother. Buckland may call me ignorant, announce my want of candour, and all this in him be proper, quite civil, gentlemanlike; but it seems, in the council of the editor and printer of E. P. J., that I ought not so much as to repeat by name these harsh accusations, much less make any reply, but quietly submit to insult, and ill usage, lest the pride of an Oxonian should be humbled."

Again, "So the journal goes on! And my 'paper in hands, minus two or three of the notes!' I confess I could wish all of them in, for I am not pleased with the manner in which the whole business has been gone about. My first paper was marred by the addition of two or three notes by the editor, injurious to its respectability. Buckland's reply appeared, but without notes. In fact, the editor stood by and saw me gored with rhinoceros' horns, and seemingly wishing my adversary success. Now when I offer to defend myself, a portion of my armour is withdrawn, and I am not permitted to fight in my own way. Nay, I am not allowed to be present at the conference, or consulted about the notes. Now, my good sir, tell the editor that I wish all the notes inserted, and that I will not be satisfied unless my wishes are complied with. I wish to act fairly to others, and as a Scotchman, Nemo me. In fact, it was in compliance with the wishes of the editor that I wrote the paper out of which the controversy has sprung, so that I consider him bound in honour to assist me, and not to lead the readers of the journal to suppose, as some of them have done, that his views are opposite to my own."

But that Jameson was not insensible to the merit of Fleming's papers, though chary of offending the Oxford savant, is evident from the following:

"For Dr Neill.

University, Thursday.

My Dear Sir,—I will avail myself of your kindness to have a letter ready for L. Edmonstone. I have not heard of Fleming for an age. Buckland has been frightened out of his Deluge-by Fleming and others- but I am not disposed to give up the Mosaic Deluge-even geologically considered. Buckland's book is a failure, and therefore very open to censure. Yours ever faithfully, "R. JAMESON."

An extract from the summing up of the "Modern Strata” will shew how soon he had occupied the ground held in the Lithology:

"In viewing these different groups of modern strata, it is surprising to observe the various causes which may have been concerned in their production, and the intermixtures of the individuals of the animal and vegetable kingdom, of fresh-water and terrestrial productions, with those of