ficiency of knowledge to be acquired for some few years, and in the meantime he may chance to change his opinion on the subject, since he argues "for truth, and not for victory," as he himself informs his readers. We have known students of medicine write against Phrenology, who have afterwards acquiesced in its truth, when advanced to the dignity of " M. D.;” and who have then not felt any great delight in hearing their former essays alluded to.

V. The Analyst. 1837.

THIS varied and entertaining periodical contains several papers and notes on Phrenology, in the Nos. for the current year; of which we give a list. No. XVIII. On the Connection of Phrenology with Physiognomy; by J. L. Levison. Critical Notices of Watson's Statistics of Phrenology; Selections from the Phrenological Journal; and J. T. Smith's Phrenology vindicated. The Academie de Médecine of Paris and its decision on Phrenology.-No. XIX. Critical Notice of Scott's Harmony of Phrenology with Scripture, and Watson's Examination of Mr. Scott's attack on Mr. Combe's Constitution of Man.- No. XX. Analysis of Combe's System of Phrenology. Continuation of Mr. Levison's paper on the Connection between Phrenology and Physiognomy. Philoprogenitiveness of the Cuckoo. Phrenology at New York. Reported Renunciation of Phrenology, by Mr. G. Combe. (The two latter copied from this Journal.) Tait's Magazine and Phrenology. No. XXI. Remarks on Musical Precocity, with Cases, by Mr. J. L. Levison. Education, as it is, and as it should be, by S. D. W. The Faculty of Locality in Pigeons. Phrenology (a note on its progress in Britain), by Mr. C. T. Wood.

The essay on education, by S. D. W., is powerfully and argumentatively written, and we have no doubt will do good. Mr. Levison's communication on musical precocity is also deserving of attention. His cases are three, those of the juvenile performers Phillips, Shaw, and Manton, each of whom appears to have inherited his taste for music from his father: nothing is said of the mothers of the boys. We copy this gentleman's remarks on the Philoprogenitiveness of the Cuckoo. "Mr. Levison informs us that he considers the extraordinary habits of the Cuckoo, as regards propagation, to result rather from a deficiency in the organ of Constructiveness than in the

portion of the brain assigned to Philoprogenitiveness, which latter propensity [organ] he states to be amply developed in the head of this interesting bird. The habits of the species certainly tend to confirm this view of the matter; for it has been observed by Mr. John E. Gray, and others, that the Cuckoo frequently returns to the nest after having deposited its egg there, and the anxiety of the bird to obtain a proper receptacle for the egg is decidedly considerable; while, on the other hand, that the Cuckoo has never even made the remotest attempt at building a nest, is an incontrovertible fact. Mr. Levison's observations on the development of the Cuckoo's head were first alluded to by that gentleman in a conversation with his friend Dr. Spurzheim, and were communicated to us during a recent visit to Mr. L."

VI. The Lancet. No. 721. June 24. 1837.

THIS Number of the Lancet is rendered interesting to phrenologists, by a letter from Dr. Elliotson, containing a description and figures of a cast of the head of Greenacre, the murderer of Hannah Brown. The proportions of his head appear to have been extremely unfavourable; so much so, indeed, as to make us feel entitled to assert that moral rectitude in Greenacre was an impossibility, under the present constitution of society, when each uneducated adult is left free to take the course dictated by his predominant feelings. We do not say that it is impossible for an individual to pass through life without committing serious crimes, if endowed with such a brain as that of Greenacre; but we do say, that nothing better can be expected from individuals thus organised, if they are to be turned loose upon society after the early years of their lives have passed without any moral training, while they have been exposed to the vicious examples which so abundantly beset the paths of the lower orders. We copy the description of the cast in the words of Dr. Elliotson, only changing the divided form in which it is printed, for the convenience of our own pages:

"The whole head is rather below the average size; for, although many parts are very large, many more are very small. The large parts are those in which Gall shows that the qualities reside which are common in great vigour to brutes as well as men. The small parts are those in which those qualities reside which are the noble characteristics of our nature. The LARGE

parts are, -the lower of the front, -the lower of the sides, and the posterior. The SMALL parts are, the higher of the front, and the higher of the sides, and the sides extend to the summit, as this is not flat and elevated, but a ridge. The organs of the LARGE parts are,-In front, The sense of things by which we take cognizance of individual objects. Sense of places. Sense of persons. Constructiveness. Language. At the sides. Alimentativeness (the desire of food). The love of property. The instinct to destroy. Cunning. All very large. At the back. Courage. The instinct of Generation. The love of offspring. Attachment. Self-esteem. Love of fame (vanity). At the summit, Firmness, and, especially, Veneration, are also large. These constituted his positive organization. The organs. of the SMALL parts are,-Causality. Comparison, which two are the highest intellectual powers. Wit. Poetic talent. Benevolence and Conscientiousness. All very small. Cautiousness. The sense of colour. Of music. Of time. Of number. Imitation. Disposition to the marvellous. If those are right who contend for an organ of Hope, that also is small; and what some contend is the organ of Order, is moderate. These constituted his negative organisation."

In a foot-note Dr. Elliotson refers to Gall's work "Sur les Fonctions du Cerveau," and adds, "No one can have a full conception of the splendour of Phrenology and the solidity of its foundations, nor of the majesty of Gall's intellect and character, who has not studied this, or the large work of Gall. Yet most persons in this country have not read either, but have derived their ideas of Phrenology from works containing much unsatisfactory speculation, instead of pure induction, and produced by minds very far below that of the great discoverer."

We agree with Dr. Elliotson, that perusal of Gall's works must be resorted to for acquiring a just idea of his intellect and character; but we cannot coincide with the remarks in the former part of the passage quoted. Any one may now learn the fundamental principles of Phrenology, to the knowledge of which Gall's unrivalled labours have led, without consulting his works, just as a knowledge of the laws of light or gravity may be acquired without reading the works of Newton. Valuable as Gall's written works are, they cannot be so valuable or so convincing as the real works of nature. And to one who has acquired the principles of Phrenology, no matter by whom taught, a direct appeal to nature must give a conception of its splendour and the solidity of its foundations, certainly not inferior to that which could be derived from learning them at second-hand by books. There may be we think there are some speculations in the works of more recent writers on Phre

nology, which are unsatisfactory in so far as they are not demonstrated truths; yet let us bear in mind, that every science is progressive; that Gall left Phrenology very incomplete; and that the authors of more recent works have had the benefit of his experience, along with that derived from the observation of numerous facts by other persons, which did not fall under his cognisance. If the works of Gall are to be the alpha and omega of all phrenologists, where is the utility of publishing anything else upon the subject? Although a competent knowledge of the science may now be attained without perusal of the works of Gall, yet we fully concur with Dr. Elliotson, in strongly recommending phrenologists to read them. The procedure of Dr. Gall was assuredly the true way to establish a solid foundation for phrenology, and as such his exertions are beyond our praise; but where is the usefulness of a foundation unless the walls be afterwards reared and a roof superimposed?

When we were on the point of sending the above remarks along with our MS. to the printer, we received a letter from Mr. Combe, containing two short extracts from others recently addressed to him by phrenologists in Paris; and as they tend to confirm our own comments, we venture to copy them, although not expressly authorised to do so. Dr. Fossati, the intimate friend and admirer of Gall, writes thus of Mr. Combe's System of Phrenology; "Votre Systéme de Phrenologie est un repertoire complet de tout ce qu'il y a d'important à connaître en phrenologie; l'érudition et les faits nombreux que vous avez recueilli égalent l'importance et la précision du sujet." And Dr. Vimont says, "It is, in my opinion, the best elementary work which we possess on Phrenology." We can scarcely conceive any phrenologist disputing the justness of these opinions, after a careful perusal of the last (fourth) edition of the System of Phrenology, even while he may not agree with all the views advocated by Mr. Combe. No one can question the soundness of Dr. Elliotson's judgment shown in his high estimation of Gall's labours; but it is not well to let our admiration of Gall be so exclusive as to make us indifferent to the merits of others.

VII. Magazine of Zoology and Botany. No. X. October, 1837.

THIS is undoubtedly the most scientific journal amongst those embracing the two departments of science mentioned in the title. Others including a wider range of subjects must

unavoidably be less perfect in these two; and the attempts to carry on magazines devoted exclusively to Zoology or Botany has met with small encouragement hitherto. Not that we think either department has yet had a fair trial apart from the other; for the separate journals have never been conducted in such a way as to attract many readers, and make a general circulation amongst zoologists or botanists at all likely to be obtained. But to enlarge on this subject here would be out of place. The Magazine mentioned above is chiefly zoological; but a little botany is thrown in, doubtless with the view of extending the circulation of the Work; for botanists, having no exclusive Journal of Botany, must either buy several journals, of the contents of which botanical subjects make a part, or must take the other alternative of remaining ignorant of the progressive state of their science. Now, we conceive that Comparative (or Animal) Phrenology, ought to enter into the plan of every zoological periodical; for surely the mental characteristics of animals, as indicated by their habits and organisation, must afford a subject of study to a philosophical naturalist, at least equally interesting as is an examination of the various colours in the feathers of birds, or the shape and the size of their toes and bills; or an enumeration of the number of teeth in the jaws, or bones in the tails of quadrupeds. But whatever interest Animal Phrenology might afford to philosophical naturalists, the fact is that zoologists pay no attention to it as yet; and the Magazine of Zoology, as far as we remember, has never alluded to the subject. Still, the phrenological gleaner may occasionally find a few grains of corn for himself, and we have introduced this slight notice of the work for the purpose of presenting one of these grains to our own readers, as a striking illustration of the influence of external circumstances in modifying the habits of animals. Every boy in England is aware of the shyness or timidity of the persecuted magpie; indeed, so great is the caution of these birds in some districts, that an inexpert marksman finds it difficult to approach within his own gunshot distance of them; yet we have only to cross a narrow sea, for the opportunity of studying the character of the magpie in a totally opposite condition with respect to timidity; and we should be glad if any of our ornithological friends could compare the skulls of English and Norwegian magpies, so as to ascertain whether the difference of habit is not accompanied by some difference in cranial configuration. In an article on the

Ornithology of Norway, in the number of the Magazine above mentioned, Mr. Hewitson thus speaks of this species: "The magpie is one of the most abundant, as well as most interesting, of the Norwegian birds, noted for its sly cunning habits here,