M. Pictet, considering the cock to be descended from the Himalayan species, argues that the ancient Aryans had it domesticated in their poultry-yards, though in early times the Greeks seem not to have been acquainted with it. Its name is an imitation of its cry, Sanskrit kukkuta, Slavonic kokoshu, Anglo-Saxon cocc, similar names being applied to very different birds, as Lithuanian kukuttis to the hooppoe, French cocotte, a very general name applied to the parrot, and English cockatoo. To Skr. kânuka, Persian kanak, belong Gothic hana, German hahn, of which we have only the feminine form in hen, and their meaning is "the singer", Skr. kan, Latin canere, while gallus, Persian gál, has a similar origin.

The bee and honey were well known to the Aryan race, but evidence fails to prove the existence of the art of bee-keeping.

The mouse is called in Sanskrit mûsha, that is to say, "the thief," from mush, to steal, and the name goes through almost the whole circle of the Aryan languages, Greek uûs, Latin mus, Slavonic myshi, etc. The flea, Latin pulex, Anglo-Saxon flach is referred to Skr. pulaka, which has the general sense of parasitic insect and a derivation from the root pul, to swarm. The name of the fly, Sanskrit makshiká, Latin musca (whence mosquito), Greek uvia, German mücke, English midge, includes several insects, to which the derivation from the root maç, to sound, as being humming insects, is more or less applicable.

The similarity of the Hebrew name of the lion, levi, lavia, with leo, etc., makes it a difficult matter to know whether we are to refer both to one origin or not, and Coptic laboi, used both for bear and lion, makes the question still more perplexed. Our author considers the European name of the king of beasts, Latin leo, Greek Néwv, Old German lewo, Slavonic livu, Lithuanian lutas, as genuine Aryan words connected with the root lû, to tear, or destroy. The lion existed in Thrace, etc., up to a comparatively late period, and M. Pictet makes the not improbable suggestion that the Cave-Lion was still living in Central Europe at and after the arrival of the divisions of the Aryan race. With the bear, there is of course no difficulty in considering its name to be lineally descended from that in use in Bactria, or wherever the Aryans may have lived in Central Asia. The Sanskrit rksha, Greek рkоs, рктоs, Latin ursus, are clearly allied. The wolf and the fox, whose names are sometimes confounded, infested the flocks and farmyards of the Aryans.

M. Pictet refers the name of the badger, Latin taxus, Italian tasso, German dachs, to the Sanskrit root taksh as being "the cutter," and

accounts for the mention of skins of tachash, translated "badgers' skins" in the Book of Numbers, as having come by commerce with Persia, and attaches more certainty to this conclusion than seems at all prudent.

The otter is an animal whose name, Greek evvôpis, Lithuanian udrà, is clearly significant of its living in the water, and allied to Sanskrit udra and to the root ud, to wet; but this word, as its sense allows, is used also for the crab; while in Zend the meaning of udra is in like manner doubtful between the otter and the beaver, to both of which it is equally applicable. The name of the beaver, found almost throughout Europe, as in Latin fiber, Anglo-Saxon, beofer, Lithuanian bebrus, etc., appears to be an Aryan word transferred from other animals, or at least belonging indefinitely to several, as in Sanskrit babhru, rat and ichneumon, Persian bibar, mouse. Its meaning is apparently "the brown animal.” The hare, German hase, Sanskrit çaça, is "the leaper;" while Greek Aayus is compared with the Sanskrit root lagh, transilire, and laghu, light, swift. The rabbit, or coney, Latin cuniculus, belongs to the verb khan, to dig, whence canal, etc., names derived from which are also applied in Sanskrit to the rat, and in Russian, etc., to the marten, from their burrowing habits. The name of the crow, Sanskrit kârava, is of great philological interest. In Sanskrit a number of words are formed by prefixing the interrogative particles ka, kat, ku, etc., to nouns with a sense of depreciation. The name of the crow is thus derived from ka-ârava— "what a voice!" This formation is common enough, as in such instances as kad-adhvan, a bad street, literally "what a street!" and ku-vanga, lead, literally "what tin!"

But the absence of such a mode of formation in the European languages gives a high interest to such words as are to be found in them, which seem to have been formed in this way while the language was still in a state which admitted of such a formation, which is found clearly defined in Sanskrit. Professor Pott has made an elaborate examination of such words in the new edition of his Etymologische Forschungen. To the Sanskrit name of the crow, kârava, is compared Latin corvus, whence, by transmission, English crow; while AngloSaxon hreafn, raefen, English raven, are allied by real relationship with some form similar to kârava, but with an n at the end of it. With reference to the raven, M. Pictet states the curious but speculative question, whether the extraordinary similarity between the Semitic names for the raven, Hebrew 'oreb, Arabic ghurab, which have no known etymology, and those of the Aryan language, make it

probable that the Hebrew name of the raven, which is mentioned early in the book of Genesis, is of Aryan origin.

With reference to the inquiry whether the ancient Aryans were acquainted with the ocean, or with some inland sea only, M. Pictet's remarks on the names of various shells should be noticed. The connection between Sanskrit çankha, Greek koyx7, Latin concha, has often been remarked, and would seem, at first sight, to prove that the fact of the ancient Aryans having a name for the great sea-conchs, used for trumpets and vases, must show that they were familiar with marine products, and, therefore, with the sea, before their separation. M. Pictet gives a very plausible etymology of çankha, by comparing it with çâkhâ, a horn, which being used for a drinking-vessel and a trumpet, would be extremely likely to pass to the great shells which were used for precisely the same two purposes. But his reasoning, that the common name proves anything whatever about the proximity to the sea of the people who used it, breaks down utterly on other grounds. The argument "for it is not to be believed that shells should have been the object of distant commerce at so remote a period" is quite worthless, seing that it is a known fact that hardly any objects of nature or art do travel so far even among barbarous tribes as the large and beautiful ocean-shells. The fact of the great shells of the Gulf of Mexico having been carried at remote periods from tribe to tribe of North America, far up into Canada, is a sufficient answer to the argument that the possession of sea-shells by the Aryans proves anything as to their geographical position. Our author's remarks on the name of the oyster, which, though not in Sanskrit, is found through the European branches of the race, tend to prove that the western section of the race became acquainted with it at a very early period, and in this instance it is reasonable to suppose that they must have lived somewhere near the sea-coast where it is found, as at so early a period the edible oyster would not be carried far.

In concluding his remarks on the animal kingdom, M. Pictet calls attention to the very suggestive consideration, that the Aryan race seem to have gone, so to speak, to first principles, in naming the animals with which they were acquainted, by some epithet characteristic of the qualities distinguishing them, not applying to them old words inherited from some other stage of development of language, with their forms mutilated, and their sense lost. The idea of the fathers of our race having begun at the beginning, not only in developing their civilization, but even in naming the plants and animals around them, from general terms expressing their quality, gives us a sense

of the independence and originality of the Aryan mind, that may well excite our astonishment, and give us a higher appreciation of the part which our race have played in the history of the world.

We propose to give in a future number, a sketch, necessarily very slight and incomplete, of M. Pictet's second volume, which is devoted to the examination of the Civilization of the Aryan race in their early home, the circumstances of their pastoral and agricultural life, their arts of war and peace, their social condition, laws, science, and religion.

ETHNOLOGICAL INQUIRIES AND OBSERVATIONS. BY R. KNOX, M.D.

Inquiry into the Influence of Climate and of Hybridity over Man. THE natural antagonism of race to race; the antagonism of man to nature's works; the laws negating hybridism in man; the tracing certain races of men to continents or centres of creation now submerged; and the influence of climate in destroying aggressive races -these were amongst the earliest of my ethnological inquiries, undertaken at a time when the superficial work of Prichard had entire possession of the field of ethnology.

The theories which all but universally prevailed before the publication of my lectures on the Races of Man, were, that all men being of one species, the varieties they present are more apparent than real; that it is education, government, climate, and civilization which give rise to these varieties, men being everywhere the same au fond: in a word, the hypothesis of Hippocrates continued to prevail until the date I refer to; and, moreover, in respect of the acclimatization of man in various regions of the world, it was boldly asserted that with time and care all varieties of men might be dislocated from the land of their origin and transferred to other regions and other climates, to which they would become habituated, viable, progressive, and as it were aboriginal. Now, although such theories found no support in history, they maintain their ground to this day; and for this simple reason, independent of others, they tallied well with certain theological hypotheses, in the support of which interests unexampled in the history of man for magnitude and importance had been long em

barked. To the theories just mentioned there was added another, namely, that the various species of animals which adorn the earth were in reality hybrids, produced by the admixture of a few primitive species with each other. This doctrine, supported by the illustrious Broca, the first of living ethnologists, I shall afterwards consider. Let us, in the meantime, attend to the question of acclimatization, and its influence over man. The theories offered by me some twenty years ago, as substitutes for the then received ideas on this subject, were that, when races of men abandon the lands on which they had grown up their so-called aboriginal land-emigrating to another continent or zone of the earth, they either wandered into desert regions, uninhabited by beast or man, or into others occupied by a section of the human race. In either case it seemed to me certain that the emigrating and obtrusive race became extinct in time. For, either they were speedily absorbed by the stronger or more numerous race in possession (as the Goths, Germans, or Gauls in Italy*), or, unless continually fed by fresh waves from their original soil, they gradually altered, deteriorated, and withered away, and so becoming non-viable and non-productive, perished. It is needless to say what opposition a theory of this kind met with in North America.

All physiological and zoological theories must, to be trustworthy, be based on observations made on the species in question, and not on analogical arguments drawn from other species. This is my answer to most of the strictures made on my work on the Races of Men by a distinguished zoologist, M. Quatrefages. Whether the great and glorious French nation, the most illustrious for literature, science, and art since the Roman period, the most energetic, the most highly civilized, be a hybrid race, as my esteemed friend M. Broca maintains, or not, I shall hereafter consider. But, in the meantime, one experiment at least, on the largest scale imaginable, has been made in comparatively modern times, having a direct reference to these allimportant questions, which the theologian, the statesman, and the dynasties of the earth would fain have men believe to be theoretical and of no importance. In vain! Let any unbiassed mind turn over the page of history for the last twenty years, and calmly look at the

The history of the Goths is remarkable. When they first encountered the Roman arms, they occupied both banks of the Lower Danube, stretching towards the Euxine and the Dniester. They emigrated into the Roman empire in vast numbers, bringing with them their wives and children. For a time they were masters of Italy; under the name of Austrians, they still hold Venice. Now, how is it they could not maintain their ground in any of the fine colonies they occupied for so long a time?