or supposition of Mr. Buckland on a point like this amounts to nothing. It would also be interesting if he would tell us what animals are not covered, or partly covered, with something, however slight, when they come into the world. If he finds, as a matter of fact, that vipers are born singly, in the open air, with a covering on them, how can he possibly resist the conclusion that those found inside of a mother, as described, had entered her by the mouth? That there may question on this point, we find in America that oviparous snakes are found with young inside of them which were hatched in the soil; the young having been seen to run in and run out by people whose evidence it would be out of the question to dispute. be no Mr. Buckland's ideas on this subject are very hazy and vague. Thus a writer in Land and Water, on the 27th of September, 1873, said that a gentleman killed a viper, and "observing it to be of unusual thickness about the middle, he put his foot upon the place, thinking that the reptile had recently swallowed a mouse. The pressure brought out ten young vipers from the mouth of the old one. Some of them were about five inches long, and some shorter; but all were alive and active, as if they had previously seen the light of day, and had again sought shelter in the parent." Mr. Buckland admitted all this, but maintained that the young had not been born, but were squeezed out of the mouth!-a rather strange phenomenon for the young inside of an egg or covering to be forced out of the mouth, in the direction of which, according to Mr. Buckland's theory, there is no passage. One would naturally think that the pressure of the foot would have converted the contents of the mother into a jelly, or forced them out towards the tail, rather than produced a stream of viperlings" from her mouth," alive its young because they are found inside "To say that a viper has swallowed it, is as logical as to state that because a lot of kittens are found alive in a mother cat, therefore the cat had swallowed them." From this one would conclude, that snakes do not swallow their young because cats do not do it! "There is nothing extraordinary in finding live baby vipers inside the mother; but they were not, and never had been, inside the stomach serted that, or imagined that Nature proper." As if any one had ever aswas such a botch as to permit the young to get mixed up with the entrails or vital organs! "They were by the side of the stomach, each wrapt up in a thin delicate membrane (the remains of the original egg), as indeed they were before they were born; but these were divested of the membrane, and, as it were," running about" inside, as can be found in a viper any summer in England. Another strange thing to be noticed in Mr. Buckland's notes on White, besides not admitting a single word in opposition to his theory as distinguished from the fact of snakes swallowing their young, is, that he does not admit of White's own evidence, which was complete, excepting that he did not tell us (because he said he did not know) how vipers are born. White wrote thus of vipers:- "Though they are oviparous, yet they are viviparous also, hatching their young within their bellies, and then bringing them forth.” In supporting this assertion, it would have been interesting had he For the particulars of this phenomenon see note at page 39. whereas Mr. Buckland writes thus: "It is still believed by many that a female viper will swallow her young when they are in peril. In nearly all the cases [he does not explain the exceptions] that have come under my examination, the event always happened a long time ago. The witness generally begins his statement thus :- When I was a little boy,' Many years ago,' My grandmother told me,' etc., etc. If vipers swallowed their young' many years ago,' why should they not do so in our time?" And he adds with a pooh, pooh air, as if he had noticed a crow flying past a window : "A correspondence on this subject takes place in Land and Water almost every year," while all the evidence furnished, including my own and that of the American Science Convention, as already explained, and the evidence to be drawn from other sources, has been passed by as if it had no value, or even existence. Presuming on something or other, whatever it may be, he thus carries things with a very high hand, riding rough-shod over every kind of evidence-quite unlike a man of superior character, intellect, and acquirements. The words underlined by him will prevent him being ever called upon to pay the pound, for young snakes do not enter that part of the mother, but take refuge in the chamber that contained the eggs, and that lies by the side or in front of the stomach, and extends below it, if my memory serves me correctly. There might be danger in taking the pound in the event of Mr. Buckland buying a pig in a bag," and laying his " subject" aside to suit his convenience in having it dissected in the presence of his witnesses, who must be called together; for he could have the countryman arrested for obtaining money on false pretences, on the plea that the young had not been swallowed; for, had they been swallowed, they would have been in the stomach, and not in the chamber! And he might even get Messrs. Lee and In White's Natural History of Selborne, published by Bickers & Son (1875), we have the original text, and the original notes marked G. W., so that the work, as it came from the hands of the author, stands out clearly from remarks made by others. Judged by this standard, Mr. Buckland's edition is an amazing production, which it would be difficult to characterize in becoming language. He disposes of White's notes as follows:-13 (some of them considerably mangled) are embodied in the text; 24 (not always copied correctly) are used as notes, with nothing to distinguish them from his own (of which he has about 30); and 24 are entirely suppressed. The language of the text is changed to incorporate the notes This offer" of Mr. Buckland, with it; and other liberties have however meaningless it is in its been taken, but to what extent can nature and indelicate in its appeal only be ascertained by collating the to naturalists, has been well circu- two publications, which would be lated for years back, and will be so the more troublesome, owing to the for the future, unless the press letters being arranged differently should say, Stop that advertise- from those in the original edition. ment," till he does the following:- The changes that may have been Ist, That he should give his ex-made are not likely to improve the aminations of vipers which he says showed that the young had never been born; 2d, that he should tell the world how vipers, as a matter of fact, are born; and, 3d, that if he finds they are born "singly, in the open air, with a covering on them, how can he possibly resist the conclusion that those found inside of a mother, as described, had entered her by the mouth?" This Mr. Buckland can easily do, since it rests with himself; whereas his offer is addressed to every one, and what is everybody's business is nobody's business.* 66 *Thus far of this article I offered to a London natural history publication, with the request that it might be returned if not accepted; and it came back, with every courtesy on the part of the editor. The remainder of the article was sent to another London journal that should certainly have printed it, but took no notice of it, as I shall mention at p. 198. language, if we judge from Mr. Buckland's Preface. White's Observations on Nature have been omitted, and in their place about a third of them, without any explanation given, have been inserted in brackets in the body of some of the letters, and in the most clumsy way; the word Observations being placed outside of the brackets, and sometimes omitted. Quotation marks have been left out when they should appear; and occasionally Mr. Buckland's own remarks printed, with nothing excepting the sense to distinguish them from White's text. In this way he breaks in upon the genius and beauty of the work—a charmingly desultory production, in which we can never imagine what even the next paragraph is likely to be; frequently the same subjects being alluded to again and again, exactly as they were written from time to time; while the interest attach- | passed under that name. Mr. Buck ing to the Observations, and most of the Observations themselves, as well as the Summary of the Weather, have been entirely done away with. Translations of Latin quotations have been printed as part of the text, and various Latin documents excluded from the Antiquities. Perhaps Mr. Buckland is the only man in England who would so treat such a book—an inheritance which every one should regard with reverence. He has shown a singular peculiarity of judgment and sense of responsibility in so "editing" it. With no references in the text, of which they are, or are supposed to be, illustrations, he adds 134 pages of notes, a very large part of which, however interesting most of them are, bear no relation whatever to White's matter, but would be suitable for a collection of illustrations, odds and ends, or scraps in natural history; and it would not be amiss to consign large parts of most of the remaining notes to the same repository; while there are a great many nice points in various branches of natural history that have not been commented on at all, and 45 pages that have no notes of any kind. It is to be sincerely hoped that Mr. Buckland's book will pass at its true value, and never be allowed to corrupt the text of the amiable White; for it is only the Natural History of Selborne altered, mixed and mutilated, and at the best only a part, although the most part, of what has hitherto III-MR. FRANK BUCKLAND ON THE VIPER. N the Dublin University Maga-originally appeared in Land and Water." zine for July, 1875, appeared a "For instance, it is a vexed question notice of Contributions to Natural History and Papers on Other Subjects, in which I find the following: "The principal articles in this volume that have reference to natural history, whether, under any circumstances, the young retreat into the stomach of the mother snake. A great authority [?], Mr. Frank Buckland, affirms that they do not; while our author is as positive that they do. And he certainly, with reason, contends that the question is | gard to that work he (or Land and entirely one of evidence; and, therefore, Water for him) says:— should be settled as a fact is proved in a court of justice; difficulties, suppositions, or theories not being allowed to form part of the testimony.' "In support of his own views, Mr. Simson has collected a large body of evidence that undoubtedly appears authentic and conclusive." In all I have read of Mr. Buckland's writings on this subject, I have seen no evidence in support of his assertion that vipers do not swallow their young. He merely maintains the negative, and produces others like himself who do not know of it, and therefore do not believe in the phenomenon, and says that it is impossible; but he has never told us how he knows that vipers do not swallow their young, and why it is impossible. The question must occur to any one, how did the idea that vipers (as well as other snakes) swallow their young originate? A subject of that kind never could have become a superstition among country people. It has been simply a matter of observation. As such, it is not to be settled by a denial, for in that case one's ignorance would be the standard by which it would be measured, or the scales in which it would be weighed. Contributions to Natural History, etc. The fact that the natural history papers in this volume made their appearance in the first instance in these columns is an effectual bar to our offering any opinion on their merits. Of the first half we have already said we can offer no opinion." To this I replied that "All of the natural history papers were sent to this journal, but only about half of them, as the work plainly shows, include the most important on the viper were published in it; and these did not question. They were all intended for Mr. Buckland, in his usual manner, to comment on them, and admit or reject the evidence contained in them." 66 Mr. Buckland has always shirked the evidence to prove that vipers do swallow their young, and has become a bar in the way" to its taking its place as a fact in natural history. The question is a very simple one that is of easy solution if we consider it according to evidence, direct as well as circumstantial; and it is strange that it should have been allowed to remain unsettled for a century, since White of Selborne brought it into prominent notice. Mr. Buckland's last contribution to the discussion presents the subject in an aspect that makes it, I think, of considerable popular in terest. The truth is, Mr. Buckland has committed himself so frequently, so fully, and so publicly on this subject, that it becomes a difficult matter to go back on himself. That I can In Land and Water, of the 2d of easily understand, as well as that he September, 1876, he gives a woodshould say nothing about the mat- cut illustration of a viper supposed ter; but I cannot so easily recon- to have swallowed its young.". His cile it with the "law of literature" definition is correct enough, for no that he should continue asserting a one but himself and his school negative, and ignoring every kind of would have supposed such a thing. evidence against his theory, as he The fact is that the young there dedid lately in his edition of White's scribed had never been born, and Natural History of Selborne, after consequently could neither have run being in possession of Contributions into nor out of the mother, especiboth before and after publication, ally as he says that each was "wrapsaying nothing of the evidence to be ped up in a very fine skin or memdrawn from other sources. In re-brane, tender as silver paper," (the |