in need of Bacon's philosophy, which might be called common sense systematized and refined, having for its object the finding of facts, and tracing them to their roots, or from their roots through their various ramifications; which constitute the philosophy of any question. I am well aware of the difficulties attending the reception of new facts and ideas, which are apt to bewilder and bore people whose judgments have never been really cultivated. The general and sometimes almost involuntary aversion to receive them is somewhat like the resistance made to a suit at law to dispossess people of their properties, to say nothing of the timidity of many to commit themselves to what might be, or what might be held by the public to be, "vulgar errors;" but that is presumed, by the "force of truth," sooner or later to disappear. It is wonderful how much the Serpent is mixed up with the Old and New Testament histories, and how little is known about it; and it would be remarkable if no meaning could be attached to the Scriptural allusions to it, or that no interest should be felt in regard to it. However odious the reptile is held to be, it wonderfully rivets the attention of people meeting it, and it is either timidly avoided or savagely killed. Many of them are not only harmless, but of great use to the farmer in clearing his fields of mice and other vermin; but some of the venomous kinds are so dangerous, that a person bitten by them might as well, in some instances, lay himself down and die, like a poisoned. rat in its hole. It is one of the mysteries of nature why some snakes should be poisonous and others harmless, when the former could apparently serve the end for which it was created without its venomous peculiarity. The leading traits in the natural history of the Snake are incidentally illustrated in the present Contributions. The Papers on Other Subjects were added after the above was written. NEW YORK, Ist September, 1874. MR. GOSS 7 I doha Birnyay and the Gipsies . 150 171 VIPERS AND SNAKES GENERALLY* FOR OR some time back I have noticed communications in Land and Water on the question, "Do vipers swallow their young?" but I have not seen the subject investigated in this way: Has any one, in dissecting a female viper, found eggs within her? and has any one found young ones inside of another? If both have been found, then, as a matter of course, the reptile must have swallowed her progeny. mantelpiece, and one morning, very soon thereafter, he was surprised at finding a number of young snakes wriggling about on it, the heat of the fire having brought the eggs to the hatching point. Now it is extremely likely that the snake that laid these eggs was of the same species as the one that was killed, for both were in the same neighbourhood, where they were very numerous; and it is a peculiarity of snakes in America that you seldom or never find two kinds occupying the same ground—at least, during two years, I never came across any other kind than that of the one killed, and I saw many of them. I at once concluded that the snake that laid the eggs, and the one con same species; and as a natural consequence, that the latter had swallowed her young-quite independent of the general belief, and the positive ocular testimony of one person as to the fact.f I will establish the principle by what I have observed on Long Island, a short distance from New York. When strolling with a friend, he very suddenly seized a stone and dashed it with all his might upon the top of a low dry stone wall, and killed a pretty large snake of the ordinary brown striped species, ly-taining the young ones, were of the ing on it, basking in the sun. As it appeared more than ordinarily full about the body, I began to dissect it in a rough way, by tearing it apart with two sticks (for I did not like to touch it), to see what it contained, thinking it might be an animal it had swallowed, as a few days before I had killed another that had a frog partly down its gullet, feet foremost, but making no noise, when its intended prey hopped away as if it had not been injured. Having always understood that snakes were animals that "laid eggs," I was greatly surprised at finding about twenty snakelets of considerable size, and rather lively; but my friend asserted on the spot that snakes swallowed their young. This naturally led me to make inquiries, and I found a trustworthy neighbour who said positively that he had seen it done. Another, equally trustworthy, informed me that he found a bunch of snake's eggs when repairing a fence, and placed them as a curiosity on his Now to confirm the question by analogy, and on my own testimony. I have said that different kinds-at least certain kinds of snakes are not apt to be found on the same ground. There is a deadly enmity between black-snakes and some others. At a place in New Jersey, where I frequently visited, and kept a lookout for snakes, I never met with any on the same ground but black ones. On one occasion I killed one, very full about the body, and took it to the house I was visiting for careful dissection, expecting to find it with young, when I would satisfy myself whether the * Dated December 7th, 1872; printed 21st. As will be seen, they were of the identical species. snake's eggs, generally near the stumps of trees, and exposed to the sun. He says that the covering resembled the white of a hen's egg very hard boiled-a fair description of those taken out of the animal. He says that he has taken the young out of various kinds of snakes, particularly black ones, and that the creatures always conducted themselves as if they had been on the earth before. He knew a number of people, who not only saw young snakes run into the mother's mouth, but took them out of her after killing her. As to the swallowing, he does not understand how any one could doubt it. I repeat the question I started with Has anyone in England found eggs in a viper? and has anyone found young ones in the same species? If both have been found, then the latter were swal young had been swallowed or were in a state previous to birth. To my surprise I extracted fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen eggs (I forget which), all of one size, perhaps a little thicker at one end than the other, and of a dirty white colour, and soft, indiarubbery touch, connected together by a glutinous substance, and lying like a necklace along, as it were, the backbone of the animal. On being torn asunder the eggs contained a thick, milkylike matter. The glutinous substance would make the eggs stick together like a bunch, in the manner of those placed on the mantelpiece. Being all of one size and maturity, the snake would evidently lay them all at once, which she does somewhat like the turtle, to be hatched by heat, altogether disconnected from herself. Indeed the snake is such a cold-blooded animal-cold to touch in the hottest of weather-lowed; for it would be simply abthat it could not apparently hatch its eggs.* I came at once to the conclusion that, if brown and black snakes brought forth their young in the same way, then surely the brown snake had swallowed hers. To confirm this analogous proof, a friend, in whom every confidence can be placed, positively affirmed that a black-snake-of the same species as the one from which I took the eggs-was cut in two in his presence, when about twenty young ones were taken out of it, of about five inches long, and so active that they had to be killed to prevent their escape. In short, the mother had swallowed them. I then consulted an old New Jersey justice, a very reliable man, who ploughed up many a nest of * This is in allusion to the oviparous snakes, the eggs of which are hatched in the ground. The so-called viviparous bring the eggs far forward to maturity inside of them, leaving it an open question whether the eggs are hatched inside or outside of the reptile, or in the act of parturition. surd to say that the same animal could bring forth its young in both ways. As American snakes swallow their young, the same should easily be believed of the English viper, even if no one had seen it done. It has surprised me that, at this time of day, such a question should be an open one. What is the meaning of science, if it cannot be settled whether or not vipers swallow their young without it being necessary for people to see it done? I should think the anatomy of the reptile, in the hands of a skilful man, would show whether it was an egg or animal-bearing creature. Mr. Frank Buckland is, therefore, very unreasonable, when he says he will not believe that vipers swallow their young, unless he or some one else sees it done: and still more so, when he expects the creature to do it to order in a state of captivity, when it has no incentive to do it. It is uncertain what leads snakes to do it. Perhaps they do it for no particular reason, when they take charge of the young after being |