FIG. 65 (full size of original) is the easily recognizable figure of a frog, in a kind of malachite from the island of Omotepec, Lake Nicaragua.

FIG. 66 is of still another and harder variety of green stone, from a mound near Natchez,

and appears to be a strange combination of the head of a siren of our western waters, or of the frog, with the human body. It is also pierced laterally, like those already described, doubtless for suspension.

I do not present FIGS. 63, 64, 65, and 66 as specimens of the chalchihuitl, but as showing the regard paid to green stones generally. It is one that pervades both continents and many nations, from the advanced Chinese, Fig. 65.

to whom the green jade is sacred, to the savage dwellers on the banks of the Orinoco, among whom Humboldt found cylinders of hard green stones, the most highly prized objects of the several tribes, and some of which it must have required a lifetime to work into shape.

Of the carved chalchihuitls, like those described from FIG. 48 to FIG. 62, I have seen but three specimens outside of my own collection: one already alluded to in the Christy Museum of London, another in the late Uhde Museum near Heidelberg, and a third in the Waldeck collection in Paris.

The question how these obdurate stones were engraved, drilled, and sawn apart, or from the blocks of which they once formed a portion, is one likely to arise in most minds. It is one that has puzzled many inquirers; nor do I pretend to give an answer, except that the drilling was probably performed by a vibratory drill, composed of a thin shaft of cane or bamboo, the silica of which was reënforced by very fine sand, or the dust of the very article under treatment. The stric shown in the orifices are proof of something of the kind, and the esteem attached to these stones by the aborigines proves that their value, like that of the mainspring of a watch, was due mainly to the amount of labor expended in their production.

As regards the sawing, of which the backs of FIGS. 51, 52, and 64, afford striking examples, we may find a clue in the accounts of the early chroniclers, who relate that they saw, in Santo Domingo and elsewhere, the natives use a thread of the cabuya (or agave), with a little sand, not only in cutting stone, but iron itself. The thread was held in both hands, and drawn right and left until worn out by attrition, and then changed for a new one, fine sand and water being constantly supplied.

Not a few inquirers entertain the hypothesis that most of the raised and sunken figures on various stones in Mexico, Central America, and the mounds of the United States, were produced by persistent rubbing or abrasion- a general hypothesis which I shall not dispute. But in objects from the mounds, as well as from other points on the continent, we have distinct evidence of the use of graving or incisive tools of some kind — as for instance in the hieroglyphics in FIG. 54, which are cut in a stone so hard that the blade of a knife produces scarcely any impression on its polished surface.

THE RECORD OF ZOOLOGICAL LITERATURE FOR 1868.* - We have before alluded to the great and increasing value of this work, and again urge its importance to American naturalists situated as many of them are away from libraries. We cannot understand how any entomologist can do without the part on insects; or the conchologist without that on shells; or the ornithologist be at all informed on the progress of his speciality unless he has this work to refer to. Its preparation is a labor of love by the editors and its liberal minded publisher, Mr. Van Voorst; and the work is a credit to their heads and hearts.

Vol. V. Edited by Dr. A. Gunther. London. Van Voorst, 1869. 8vo, pp. 592. Price reduced to $10 a vol. The Record for 1867 and 1868, also in parts: Part 1, Vertebrates, $3.50; Part 2, Entomology, $4.00; Part 3, Mollusks, Crustacea and the Lower Animals, $3.50. For sale at the Naturalist's Book Agency.

THE RECORD OF AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGY FOR 1869 will be published late in May. It will contain chapters by Messrs. Scudder and Uhler, Drs. Horn and Packard, and Baron Osten Sacken. Price, $1.00, which does not cover the cost of printing. We trust lovers of entomology will evince their zeal for the science by promptly subscribing to this useful publication. We hope that it will meet with better support than last year, as the publishers are sadly out of pocket in consequence of the small sale of the work for 1868.

THE WEEDS OF MAINE.* This pamphlet, issued from the State Printing Office, consists of a few forms taken from the recent report of the Secretary of the Maine Board of Agriculture. The young man whose name appears as the author, has certainly shown a remarkable taste for botanical study. Wholly unassisted, even by friendly advice, he commenced the study of botany under great disadvantages and he has zealously prosecuted his herborizing during the too scanty leisure afforded by a Maine farm. The extraordinary power of diagnosis, which the author possesses, leads us to hope that he will devote the next few years to rigid disciplinary study, and then resume botanical work for which he seems to be so well fitted. The pamphlet itself is not to be criticised as a botanical work, and therefore we shall take the present opportunity to make it the text for a few very brief remarks. It is so easy to learn the names of plants and associate the two together, and so very difficult to learn the plant itself, that too many of our young botanical students are devoting their time simply to collecting, preserving, and naming specimens. In view of the many great questions in plant-physiology which are now being asked, it seems to be a sort of botanical dissipation to give up to the name what is due to the plant. These questions arise every week. The January 3d number of "Comptes rendus," contains a very interesting note by M. Prillieux upon the movements of chlorophyl grains under the influence of light. It is obvious that such a subject of study as this, one dealing with forces and with life itself, is more difficult than that of guessing at the names of all the Solidagos and half the Carices, but it is plain, too, that the thinkers of our time are asking that the former kind of work shall be done and faithfully done. Our plants are well named, and therefore we are justified in suggesting that our young botanical friends devote less time to mere "botanizing,” as it is absurdly called, and give more time and better work to the study of the plant.

THE GEOLOGY OF THE NEW HAVEN REGION.†- Professor Dana describes the geology of New Haven and vicinity, with especial reference to the origin of its topographical features; showing by special facts, that the region, in the glacial era, like that of New England to the North, was moulded by ice, and that icebergs had no part in the matter, and the supposed iceberg sea over New England no existence.

*By F. L. Scribner.

From the Transactions of the Connecticut Academy. 1870. 8vo, pp. 112.

NATURAL HISTORY MISCELLANY.

BOTANY.

- The first

COLLECTED NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN OAKS. American oak noticed in botanical works is the white oak, mentioned by Parkinson in "Theatrum Botanicum," 1640, as Quercus alba Virginiana. Banister, 1686, in "Catalogus Plantarum in Virginia Observatarum” (in Rayi Historia) mentions Quercus alba virens (as Virginiana sempervirens), Phellos (as Ilex Marilandica) with a drawing by Ray, and ilicifolia Wg. (as Q. pumila).

Pluckenet in "Amagestum Botanicum," 1696, enumerates Quercus esculi divisura, which is Q. rubra L., Q. Americana rubris venis ( Q. coccinea Wg.), var. 7 (DC.), Q. Virginiana salicis longiore folio (Q. Phellos L.), Q. Virginiana sempervirens (Q. virens Ait.), Q. castaneæ folio ( Q. prinus palustris Michx.), Q. pumila castaneæ folio Virginiensis (Q. prinus pumila Michx.), Q. rubra, Phellos and Prinus palustris, are illustrated.

Catesby in his "Natural History of Carolina," 1731, names Q. alba, Prinus palustris and virens. Q. nigra L., he calls Q. Marilandica; Q. aquatica Walt., he knows under the name Quercus folio non serrato; his Q. esculi divisura is Q. Catesbai Michx., and his Q. humilis salicis folio breviore is Q. cinerea Michx.; all except the latter are illustrated.

Charlevoix in "Histoire et description générale de la Nouvelle France," Paris, 1744, knows Q. prinus palustris Michx., Q. alba L., Q. virens Ait., and Q. nigra L.; he gives drawings of the three latter.

In Gronovius' "Flora Virginica," 1743, containing the plants which John Clayton observed in Virginia, we find Q. Phellos, nigra, aquatica, Prinus palustris, ilicifolia, which he calls Q. pumila bipedalis, Q. stellata Wg. (to him Q. alba) and falcata Michx., which he calls rubra seu hispanica.

Kalm in his travels, or rather in his "Preliminary Report on his Botanical Collections," 1751, mentions only four oaks. Q. rubra and alba, the Spanish oak (Q. falcata Michx.) and another one with three lobes at the apex of the leaves, which is perhaps the var. triloba of the latter (Q. triloba Michx.). These are the American oaks known at the time when Linnæus' "Species Plantarum," 1753, was published. Linné established five species, Q. Phellos, comprising Q. virens and cinerea as varieties and 7. Q. nigra x and f (x being aquatica Walt.), Q. rubra, comprising rubra, coccinea and Catesbæi, Q. prinus (Q. prinus palustris Michx.) and Q. alba. Du Roi published (in "Harbke'she wilde Baumzucht," Braunschweig, 1771) a new species, Q. palustris.

Marshall published his "Arbustum Americanum," in 1785, in which he described the following oaks: Q. alba, Q. alba minor=stellata Wg., Q. alba palustris, which is apparently Q. Prinus tomentosa Michx., not Q.

alba. as Michaux says; Q. nigra=coccinea (Q. tinctoria Bartr.), Q. nigra digitata, Q. nigra trifida, Q. nigra integrifolia, the two latter certainly falling under Q. nigra L. var. p, Q. nigra pumila=Q. üicifolia Wg., Q. rubra; Q. rubra ramosissima=Q. palustris Du Roi; Q. rubra montana=Q. falcata Michx.; Q. rubra nana=Q. Catesbæi Michx.; Q. Phellos angustifolia and latifolia Q. Phellos L. (silvatica Michx.); Q. Phellos sempervirens=Q. virens Ait.; Q. Prinus=Q. Prinus monticola Michx.; Q. Prinus humilis= Q Prinus pumila Michx.

Wangenheim in his work on the "Americanische Holzarten," 1787, proposed some new species, of which three are acknowledged to-day: Q. stellata (the Q. alba minor of Marshall), Q. ilicifolia (the Q. pumila of Banister), and Q. coccinea (Q. rubra L., var. a). His Q. cuneata is Q. falcata Michx., var. 7 triloba, and his Q. uliginosa is the Q. aquatica Catesby.

Walter in "Flora Caroliniana," published in the year 1788, enumerated thirteen oaks: 1, Q. sempervirens (virens Ait.); 2, Q. Phellos; 3, Q. humilis (cinerea Michx., var. 7. humilis); 4, Q. pumila (cinerea Michx., var. pumila); 5, Q. Prinus; 6, Q. niyra; 7, Q. aquatica (nigra L., a); 8, Q. rubra (glandibus parvis globosis, perhaps Q. ilicifolia Wang. ?); 9, Q. lævis (Catesbæi, Michx.?); 10, Q. alba; 11, Q. lyrata, which he first describes; 12, Q. sinuata, from the description of which it is not plain what it means; 13, Q. villosa already described by Wangenheim as Q. stellata. Michaux gives Catesby, who indeed described, but did not name it, the authorship of Quercus aquatica. De Candolle makes Walter the author of it; the latter published his Flora one year after the publication of Wangenheim's work, in which the species is described and called uliginosa. The descriptions of both the authors are as poor as possible; both the names derived from the hygrophile nature of the tree are good enough, only that the right of priority, acknowledged as a general rule by the international Botanical Congress at Paris, is in favor of Wangenheim's name. But the name aquatica is indeed older, and was first used by Clayton in Gronovius, so his name should be added. By the way, Walter is noteworthy for his modesty, which should be imitated by many an eager speciesmaker. His work is full of Anonymos," and in the preface he says: "Libertatem appellative assignandi paucis tantum concedendam sentit, quamobrem iis, qui in hac scientia merito duces sunt, jus reliquit dicendi quænam sint nomina plantis nunc primum descriptis." If so many botanists, who, overrating the doubtful merit of having created a new species, fill our botanical books with names, would follow modest old Walter, a good deal of wasted paper could be saved, and a good deal of unnecessary work. Indeed, it is much easier to make new species, than to clean those Augean stables of synonyms.

Aiton in "Kew Garden," 1789, calls the long-known Q. sempervirens of Catesby Q. virens; the latter name is adopted.

William Bartram, in his "Travels through North and South Carolina," Phil. 1791, proposes the new species Q. tinctoria, which De Candolle in