



Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive)





[Illustration: The Historical Department.]

       *       *       *       *       *

                                  THE
                            MUSEUM GAZETTE.

                 NO. 2.      JUNE, 1906.      VOL. 1.

       *       *       *       *       *

OUR HISTORY ROOM. (_See Frontispiece._)

A department of our Museum to which, as regards its educational
usefulness, we attach very great importance, is that which attempts the
illustration of Human History. It is displayed in a separate division
of the main building, and is arranged, as far as possible, on “the
space-for-time method.” This method, which, following the pattern of
an ordinary diary, allots to every period of time the same amount of
space, is, of course, possible only where the time-periods and dates
are fairly well established. It is not well adapted, excepting as
a sort of open and, to some extent speculative, framework for the
illustration of prehistoric times. A courageous example of such use of
it we ventured to offer in our last number in reference to prehistoric
man in Britain. It was not history in any other sense than that the
periods of time were real; the events assigned to them were largely
conjectural. In the Museum itself we do not attempt to deal with very
remote periods in this manner. Our space-for-time arrangement begins
only with 2000 B.C. It might now, perhaps, fairly begin with 4000 B.C.,
but, unfortunately, we have not space enough. In this Schedule, which
occupies the whole of one side of a long room (70 feet), a measured
space on the wall, of nearly two feet, is allotted to each century.
The centuries are marked out by strong black lines, drawn vertically
from roof to the table-shelf below. This table-shelf is 18 inches wide,
and runs the whole length of the room. It is upon it that the busts
shown in our frontispiece are standing. Each bust is supposed to be in
its appropriate century, and with it are placed any other illustrative
objects belonging to the period--medals, coins, small architectural
models (when we have them), and the like. For instance, a model of
Stonehenge stands in the century in which it seems probable that that
most remarkable structure was built, and portions of Roman pavement
and other relics mark the period of the Italian occupation of Britain.
Upon the wall itself are placed engravings, photographs, and the like,
illustrative of the century, and representing either human personality
or some results of human effort. In order to aid the memory each
century is designated by the name of some prominent person of the time,
to whom other associations may conveniently cling. These names, painted
in bold characters, head the columns which represent the centuries.
Beneath these prominent names we have (in the case of a considerable
number of the most recent centuries) put up schedules of the principal
events, and lists of some of the principal persons. The appended
schedule is one of them and will illustrate what is meant:--

                            FOURTEENTH A.D.

                               CHAUCER.

                    The Three Edwards.
                    Bannockburn.
                    Famine in England.
                    The Hundred Years’ War begins.
                    Battle of Crecy.
                    The Black Death (Plague).
                    Battle of Poictiers.
                    Bolingbroke dethrones Richard II.
                    Froissart’s Chronicle.

    Wallace and Bruce. Dante. John of Gaunt. Rienzi. Van Artevelde.
          Wickliffe. Huss. Boccaccio. Petrarch. William Tell.

It will, if what we have tried to describe has conveyed its intended
meaning, be seen that an observer passing slowly down the length of
the room, may appreciate at a glance the relative position of the
principal events in the world’s history. He can hardly avoid noticing,
with fair accuracy, the distance between Homer and Socrates, between
Socrates and Paul, and between the Christian epoch and the times of
Milton and Shakespeare. He will be impressed at once, as, possibly,
he never was before, with a perception of the brief and very recent
portion of time which contains the whole of the annals of our own
nation. If, in addition to thus obtaining a sort of bird’s-eye view
of the progress of the world, it is desired to go into detail and
devote time to the enquiry, a certain amount of help will be found
to have been provided on the table-shelf. Detailed schedules taken
from the “The Centuries” (see advertisement) have been mounted on
board conveniently for hand use, and are placed on the table-shelf at
the foot of each century. A few books of reference in biography and
history, and numerous maps, have also been suitably placed, and there
are chairs.

The “Historical Schedule” described takes up, as we have said, the
whole of one side of the long room. The other side of it, as well
as much of the floor-space, is occupied by somewhat miscellaneous
illustrations of prehistoric times, and of nations and races which
have not as yet attained to history. The anthropoids, anthropology
and ethnology in general here find illustration, in large part, but
not wholly, by pictorial aid. We have also a few interesting objects
suitable, as illustrating social progress, for what is now known as a
Folk-Museum.

It is believed that this department of the Museum offers special
facilities to teachers, who bring their classes into it and give
explanations on the spot, and that by enabling the pupil to obtain a
wide purview of historical times, it may do somewhat to obviate the
inevitably cramping influence of the too detailed study of single
epochs.

       *       *       *       *       *

FAMOUS WOMEN AT THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.

We have climbed to the third landing. Let us turn into the left-hand
gallery and we shall come to one of the most interesting groups in the
whole Museum.

It is that which contains portraits of English women whose names
have become famous in literature. Here we have Mrs. Browning, Sarah
Austin, Mrs. Carter, Miss Strickland, George Eliot, Mary Somerville,
and many others. The collection is not nearly so complete as could
be wished--for Jane Austen, Anne and Jane Taylor, Hannah More, the
Brontës, and many others are wanting--still, it is very good. But
few males are admitted. Robert Browning is very properly allowed
to accompany his wife, and the fact, we presume, that his wife was
with him, has also gained access for Thomas Hood. A portrait of Lady
Hamilton strikes us as a little out of place, but the Museum has as
yet no department for female charm, and as this is by Romney it may
have been difficult to refuse it. With the exception of it and one of
Elizabeth Fry, all the others have more or less direct claim to be
associated with literature or science. To Mrs. Opie, Mrs. Browning
and Miss Strickland no one will hesitate to accord the praise of good
looks, and many others exhibit in a remarkable degree the bright-eyed
intelligence which we expect from authoresses. Several show a splendid
breadth of forehead, the accompaniment, no doubt, of a brachycephalic
or broad head. Mrs. Carter, Miss Mitford (of “Our village”), Mrs.
Trimmer, Miss Strickland and George Eliot are the best, but not the
only instances of this. It might be hardly good manners to describe
too exactly the various features of feminine faces, and the fact that
but few show the profile makes it difficult to judge accurately as to
size and shape of nose and chin. Few are, in any sense, disappointing.
That of Mrs. Carlisle might have been kept back without loss, since,
if it is in the least true to life, it gives a too painful sense
of justification to the rumours of married unhappiness, which were
probably to a large extent unfounded. The portrait of Sarah Austin,
when old and ill, might also perhaps be spared, since there is a very
pleasing one of her in earlier life. At any rate, the two ought to be
placed together. Declining, as we do, in reference to almost the whole,
the task of detailed analysis of features, we cannot, in the interests
of physiognomical research, exempt those behind which lay the most
profound intellect ever possessed by a woman. Mrs. Carter in classical
and literary attainments, and Mary Somerville in the domain of science,
must be accorded foremost places. Mrs. Browning is second, perhaps, to
none in depth of human sympathy and beauty of poetic expression; but
if we estimate character by profundity of insight, we shall probably
accord to George Eliot amongst women much the same position as that
which Shakespeare holds amongst men. We do not for a moment compare her
with Shakespeare.

Of George Eliot the Museum possesses three portraits. Most fortunately,
it has also one of her father. It would add enormously to the value
of portraits as a means to the illustration of character, if we might
always have associated with that of a distinguished individual those
of his parents, and even of his brothers and sisters. The portrait of
Robert Evans (George Eliot’s father) is a very pleasing one--a grave,
serious face, with a large Roman nose, well-formed lips and chin, and
a really magnificent forehead. The nose probably gives a clue to his
family descent.

Of those of the authoress herself, the first, taken when she was 23,
by a lady friend (Mrs. Bray), is a poor work of art, and exhibits a
commonplace face, surmounted by a very large rounded forehead. It is
impossible to judge of the nose. A second is of some years older, and
is much better executed. The forehead is still there, and the nose is
shown of good size and shapely, and the lips and chin are well formed.
The face is a shorter one than in the next, and the hair is of a much
lighter tint. The face is pleasing and attractive, not much unlike, if
we remember rightly, one which represented Jenny Lind.

Lastly, we come to the often copied and well-known portrait at age 46,
by Sir F. Burton. In this the nose and face are long, almost suggesting
an approach to what is called a horse face. The chin is good, but as
the fine forehead is much concealed by folds of hair, the balance of
features is not perfect, and the whole result not pleasing. All the
three show the eyes light grey or blue. There can be no doubt that
George Eliot had a large forehead and a fairly large nose and chin, but
further than this these somewhat disaccording portraits do not take us.
We must fall back on her father’s Roman nose and really beautifully
balanced features.

Mary Somerville’s face is a very intellectual one, but a trifle cold as
regards mouth and chin. Looking at Mrs. Carter’s width of forehead, no
one can doubt that she had “skull-room” for many languages and what had
been written in them. There is a most pleasant expression on her face,
suggesting a genial companion and ready conversation, but her chin is
weak and small. Mrs. Browning’s face is alive with graceful vigour, and
her forehead, as we have already said, is full and round.

It is held that the heads of women are dolichocephalic (long in
proportion to breadth) in larger average than those of men. There is
certainly nothing in this collection of portraits which would oppose
the supposition that the higher developments of intellect in women,
as in men, are usually met with in heads unusually broad. Such an
inference must, however, be accepted with some caution.

       *       *       *       *       *

THE BRAIN IN RELATION TO INTELLECT.

When we speak of size of brain in reference to intellectual endowments
we must draw a clear distinction between the eminence of a specialist
and that of one of wide attainments. A man may become famous as a
specialist by the sedulous cultivation of one branch of knowledge,
whilst far from being distinguished by wide grasp of thought. Indeed,
the absence of interest in some branches of knowledge may greatly
favour the exclusive devotion to a single one. Peschell quotes
the weights of the brains of some Göttingen professors which were
considerably below the average: Gauss, Fuchs (pathologist), Hermann
(philologist), Haussmann (mineralogist).

Cuvier and Lord Byron are usually cited as having had brains much
heavier than the average, but there is some uncertainty, especially as
to the latter. None of his lordship’s portraits suggest a large head.

Although there are considerable discrepancies in the statements of
those who have examined the matter, there can be little or no doubt
that the brain increases somewhat with the advance of civilisation, and
that it was smaller in the prehistoric races of man than in the more
advanced ones of the present age. The differences are probably not so
great as many may expect, but they are real. The Australian natives
stand the lowest, and the Europeans the highest. The American Indian
had a larger brain than the Asiatic, and the Asiatic than the African.
The Chinese stand between the European and the <DW64>. Two Irish skulls
are perhaps the largest on record.

The size of the skull may possibly not be always a safe indication of
the amount of useful brain matter contained in it. It is said that the
large-skulled Germans have brains which are of lower specific gravity
than those of others.

There are many sources of fallacy as regards the weight of the brain
in different persons, different races, and in the two sexes. We must
not trust too implicitly to statistics or to tabulated records. It is
better to be content with general results, and to state even these with
great caution.

There can, however, be but little doubt that the brain of woman weighs
less than that of man, and that this difference is greatest in highly
civilised races. The brains of the broad-headed are, as a rule,
somewhat heavier than those of the long-headed. This conclusion has
been arrived at by comparing the brains of different individuals of the
same race, not those of different races (Peschell, p. 70).

There are some observations which support the conclusion that the brain
attains its greatest weight before 30 years of age, and then undergoes
diminution. At the age of 80 this diminution is supposed to reach 10
per cent. The diminution concerns the brain proper and the cerebellum,
but not their connecting part, the pons, which increases up to the
fiftieth year. Whilst it is, however, difficult to imagine methods
by which, without risk of great fallacy, such conclusions could be
arrived at, we may safely believe that the advance of age is attended
by some reduction in the size of the skull cavity and the weight of its
contents.

It appears to be a constant law that with advance of civilisation the
differences between the sexes in general become increased. This is seen
in measurements of the skull and in the weight of the brain. In the
brains of <DW64>s the woman is but little below that of the man, 984
to 1,000, but in the English it is only 860, and Germans 838. These
figures indicate, of course, proportions only, and like all other
calculations in this difficult subject, must be received with caution;
but they probably indicate, if they do not precisely express, the fact.

The height of the skull is usually in inverse ratio to its breadth. The
variation in height is far less than is common in breadth.

The brachycephalic have heavier brains than the dolichocephalic.

In Hottentots both indices, breadth and height, are low.

The following may be mentioned as examples of remarkably broad heads
(wide foreheads), in association with genius: Shakespeare, Beranger,
Mirabeau, Peacock (the novelist), Miss Austen, Blackmore (“Lorna
Doone”), Tennyson, Erskine.

The following had heads both tall and broad: Scott, Goethe, Cervantes,
Ambrose Paré, John Foster, Father Paul, Galileo, Michael Angelo,
Machiavelli, Benjamin West.

We shall be indebted to any of our readers who may direct our attention
to other well-marked examples.

The following afford instances of remarkably tall heads: Motley (the
historian of the Netherlands), Remin (engineer), Richard Roberts
(engineer).

The following had remarkably long faces: Francis I., Inigo Jones,
George Eliot (Miss Evans), Savonorola.

       *       *       *       *       *

THE EGG MARKET IN ENGLAND.

A wholesale dealer gives us the following items as to the consumption
of eggs in London: When eggs are 16 for a shilling the sale amongst
the working classes is enormous. When they are 12 a shilling it falls
at once 40 per cent., and when only 8 it drops very low. The bulk
of London eggs are imported; Italy supplies many, France many, and
some even come from Turkey. They will travel from Trebizond and be
perfectly fresh when they arrive in London. We are assured that most
of the new-laid eggs consumed in Haslemere come from Italy, and this
at all periods of the year. Our English housewives are not clever at
preserving eggs, and the witty classification of eggs into new-laid
eggs, fresh eggs, and eggs, is but too often illustrated.

       *       *       *       *       *

ON OUTGROWTHS AND APPENDAGES.

(_Part of a Museum Lecture._)

Let us draw a clear distinction between “Appendages” and “Outgrowths.”
The prickles which are formed on the branch of a rose are appendages;
they may be detached without really breaking any part of the bush.
The spines which grow on the blackthorn are outgrowths, and cannot be
so detached. I wish that some better word than “appendages” could be
found, for it seems almost to imply insignificance, and many of the
appendages to plants are of the utmost importance. Still, it is true of
them all that they may be removed and yet leave the plant, as a plant,
complete, and many or most of them have only a transitory life, which
does not by any means equal that of the plant itself. They are like the
luncheon basket at the summer day’s ramble, not absolutely essential,
but very conducive to perfection. Now most forms of leaf, flower, fruit
and prickle are in this sense merely appendages. From the very earliest
stages of their formation arrangements exist for their separation, in
whole or part, from the plants on which they are produced. You will
see that I am cautious in my terms, and say in part or in whole, for
in truth some appendages never are detached as wholes, and very great
variety exists in the ways in which they are dealt with. For the most
part they are susceptible of death, and have their fixed duration
of life quite independently of the plant which bears them. In many
this independent death is the cause of their being cast off. In some
instances, however, it is not death, nor even sickness, but the fulness
of life and the attainment of adult age which causes them to leave the
parental home. I hold in my hand an oak twig with two empty acorn cups.
The acorns having attained maturity, have fallen out. Shall we say they
have detached themselves, or that the tree has detached them? They
have not fallen by mere weight, for they were doubtless nearly, if not
quite, as heavy whilst still green, and they were then firmly fixed.
You see at the bottom of the empty cup the large round scar which marks
the site of former attachment. It is brown and dry. It was by changes
which took place here that the acorn was loosened. The acorn had
ripened and ceased its growth. It no longer attracted sap through its
base of attachment, and the latter consequently became dry and brittle.
Possibly its feeding tubes were choked; at any rate, it is certain that
it underwent a sort of death and was no longer able to keep the acorn
in place. The process was much like that which occurs in the shedding
of leaves, with, however, the very noteworthy difference that the acorn
itself was still alive.

We have not, however, done with our oak twig. The acorns which it
bore were only appendages to an appendage, and it now becomes the
turn of the cups themselves and the whole of the long foot-stalk on
which they are mounted to become detached. These are no part of the
tree, and are of no use to it. They were developed in order to bear
flowers and fruit; that function they have now discharged, and they
must die. Life is preserved only by the discharge of function, or at
any rate the effort to discharge it. Utter inactivity leads to death,
and death leads to separation from the living and to decay. You see
that the whole foot-stalk is brown and shrunken and evidently dead.
This condition ends abruptly where the foot-stalk joins the stem. At
this spot, if you look carefully, you will see that there is a ring
of constriction, marking definitely where detachment is in progress.
This was the spot at which the production of the whole appendage began,
and here a sort of joint was left at which the final detachment was
destined to occur. Just one word of caution, that we must not carry
our distinctions too far. After all, they are to some extent matters
of degree. The joint which separates the appendage from the twig on
which it is produced can hardly be termed a true joint, for certain
structures run in unbroken continuity from the stem to the appendage.
These are the fibro-vascular bundles by which the appendage is fed and
also fixed in place. These bundles are usually quite visible in the
scar-surface left when a leaf or fruit is broken off. They are “the
nails in the horse-shoe” of the leaf-scar of the horse chestnut. Still,
it is certain that a sort of joint is present, and that the structures
are continuous in a very different sense from that of a stem or true
branch. You may observe this difference in my acorn-bearing twig, for
there are two acorn cups, and one has been produced by a branching out
from the stem of the other. This little branch is smoothly continuous
with the parent branch, and shows no preparation for detachment
whatever.

Thus we have seen that the arrangements under which leaves are shed
are exactly repeated in the case of fruits, and that it is by no means
needful that the object to be detached should be dead or dying. It
may perhaps surprise you to be told that sometimes appendages are
shed which have by no means accomplished their prospective work. Some
plants shed their flowers and do this deliberately, having made their
arrangements for a step which is apparently suicidal. In reality it is
not suicidal, nor is it one of limitation of population, but simply of
preferential employment of capital. The potato gives a good example of
this. Every spring you may see on the heads of this plant beautiful
flowers produced, which are destined in the course of another week to
be only flowerless foot-stalks. The flowers break off at a pre-existing
joint, just as leaves are shed. The influence which causes them to fall
is inability to attract sap, in consequence of inability to proceed to
the further stage of producing fruit. The young tubers underground make
such overpowering demands upon the sap-furnishing capabilities of the
roots that the flowers cannot obtain sufficient for their seed forming.
Thus they at once die: if not obviously, at any rate practically, and
detachment follows as a natural result.

It is a case of competitive growth and the tubers win. After a time the
plant will in the course of inheritance learn that it is useless to
produce flowers, will give up the attempt; indeed, many varieties have
already done so to a considerable extent.

No better instance could perhaps be given of the law which goes through
all animated Nature that activity is almost essential to continuance of
life, whether in individuals or their parts.

       *       *       *       *       *

THE OLDEST FOSSILS (Lingula).--It is a noteworthy fact that these, the
oldest fossil animals known, belong to species by no means low in the
scale. Yet every trace of the many millions which must have preceded
them, and have gradually led up to their development, have perished.
The period of time which must have elapsed subsequent to the advent of
life upon the planet and the development of the lingula mollusc was
probably quite as long as that which has passed since the lingula left
its shell in the mud of the Portmadoc slate. The oldest fossils which
are known are found in the lower Cambrian rocks. They are small oval
shells, which were, during life, the protection of small soft-bodied
sea animals of highly complex structure: they had red blood. Their
descendants are still found in great numbers burrowing in sand on the
shores of tropical oceans. They have received the name of Lingula, and
have in turn conferred that name on certain hard rocks in which their
shells occur in abundance, the “Lingula flags” of Wales (RAY LANKESTER).

       *       *       *       *       *

HUGE SHARK’S TEETH.--Ray Lankester figures, in his interesting lectures
on extinct animals from which we have quoted the above a gigantic
shark’s tooth. It is that of the _Carharodon megalodon_, and is three
times the length of the tooth of any living shark. Specimens of this
fossil tooth of smaller dimensions are common, and one should be found
in every museum. They are obtained from the bone bed of the Red Crag
at Felixstowe, but were not originally deposited in it. Many of them
have fragments of a yet older sandstone adhering to them. Lankester
calculates that his shark was 100 feet long.

       *       *       *       *       *

THE GREAT FAMILY OF THE CAMELS AND DEER.

The Camel, the Camelopard, the Musk-deer and the Deer are all more or
less nearly related. They constitute a branch of the great family of
Ruminants, and all chew the cud. With the Camel are associated the
Bactrian or two-humped Camel, the Alpaca, the Llama and the Vicuna.
With the Giraffe we have the Okapi, and several extinct animals. The
Musk-deer stands almost alone. Of Deer there are a great many species.
It is easy enough to distinguish these various animals the one from the
other when seen living in a Zoological Garden or stuffed in a museum.
Indeed, at first sight, there might seem to be no great similarity
between a Camel, a Giraffe, and a Fallow-deer. To the student of
natural history, however, it becomes of great interest to observe the
essential peculiarities of each. These may be grouped as those which
prove relationship and those which show differences. We will leave
aside the very important peculiarities in the stomach, because but few
of our readers will have opportunities for examining them, and will
confine our attention to the feet, horns, skull and teeth. All have two
hoofs or more, and the Camel group have behind their hoofs a pad which
covers the sole. None of them have hollow horns, and in none are their
weapons of offence--horns, teeth, tusks, &c.--very effective. In all
when adult the cutting teeth (incisors) in the upper jaw are absent,
and in most the canines are either absent or much modified.

The Camel tribe differ from Giraffes in possessing a pad, and in
having, when young, incisor teeth in the upper jaw, and fewer lower
incisors by two. They have also strong canines in both jaws, no trace
of horns, and nothing to be called tusks.

The Giraffes have two, three, or even five abortive horns of very
peculiar development. They have very long necks, no pads, no tusks.
The canine teeth in the lower jaw, which look like incisors, are much
specialised in being cleft or notched.

The little Musk-deer has no sort of horn; but his upper canine teeth
are large and form tusks.

The true Deer have antlers (in the male), which they shed every year.
The males, and sometimes the females, have canine teeth in the upper
jaw. The antlers are dermal bones, that is, are formed in the skin, and
do not grow from the skull. They have two rudimentary digits above the
hoofs.

The whole of this group, which we may call the Camel and Deer family,
are almost wholly defenceless, the Giraffe the most so of all, and,
excepting those which are useful in domestication, are threatened with
extinction. The Camels and the Llamas, although separated as distantly
as Peru and Arabia, have in common the very peculiar habit of snorting
most offensively at those who oppress or annoy them.

This large family of Camels and Deer stands between a small one which
comprises Pigs, and a very large one, to which Cattle, Sheep, Goats and
Antelopes are assigned. Pigs are not ruminants, and have incisor teeth
in the upper jaws. Cattle, sheep, &c., like camels and deer, ruminate,
and have no cutting teeth in the upper jaw. Their distinctive features
are hollow horns (which are present in both sexes), and the invariable
absence of tusks.

The canine teeth in all members of the Giraffe group are peculiar,
in that they show a cleft in the free edge which divides them into
two lobes. These teeth look as if they belonged to the incisors, but
various facts prove them to be really the canines. Those of the extinct
Sivatherium, and those of the recently discovered Okapi, have similar
peculiarities, and thus prove their relationship.

It is curious that our natural history authorities are not yet agreed
as to whether the Giraffe has his fore limbs longer than the hind ones
or not. Claus and Sedgwick say, “hind legs much shorter, and therefore
the back <DW72>s backwards.” Those who have measured the bones, however,
say that there is no difference, and that the <DW72> depends entirely
upon the setting of the shoulder blade.

       *       *       *       *       *

ENGLISH EDIBLE SNAILS.

“WALL-FISH.”

The term “wall-fish” will be unknown to many of our readers. It is
applied by dealers in Covent Garden and other markets to the common
garden snail (_Helix aspersa_). This mollusc is held in especial esteem
by the poor in Bristol, and in consequence is now very scarce in the
environs of that city. There are men who make a livelihood during the
winter by collecting these snails from their hybernating places. In
November, 1896, the writer met a “wall-fish” collector in a remote
village in Somerset, and had an interesting conversation with him. He
was collecting for a Bristol dealer, his home being in Kent, where he
worked as a carpenter in summer and autumn. For many winters past he
had regularly visited Somerset to collect snails. According to his
experience these snails seldom hybernate in banks facing east or north,
but usually seek winter quarters in those facing south-west.

They generally congregate in some numbers, and appear to have a
predilection for certain spots. From an hybernaculum near the village
he had that morning taken a gallon and a half of them, but this was
very unusual; his “takings” as a rule did not exceed a gallon per day.

Ash stumps, or crannies at the base of ash-trees, are very favourite
haunts. They seldom hybernate under oaks, and although old walls are
favourite places in summer, whence they probably owe their name of
“wall-fish,” they seldom hybernate in them.

Our “wall fisherman” carried an iron rod about 2 feet long, slightly
crooked at one end for probing likely nooks and corners. _H. aspersa_
is quite the most nearly domesticated of the snail tribe. It loves the
haunts of man, and is seldom found in any numbers in places remote from
villages and roadsides.

A conchologist should never miss an opportunity of examining the bag of
a wall-fish collector. Occasionally rare varieties--_scalariforme_ for
instance--may be secured in this way. I asked my friend to allow me to
inspect his “catch,” and he very obligingly turned out the contents of
his creel. I found nothing better than three or four examples of the
variety _exalbida_, which is greenish-white. It is, however, widely
distributed in the southern counties. It is stated by Forbes and Hanley
(“Hist. Brit. Moll.,” vol. iv., p. 46), that “owing to its being an
article of food in some countries, or else a supposed remedy for
pulmonary affections, _H. aspersa_ has been transported and distributed
by the agency of man to all parts of the world. It is especially
abundant in the neighbourhood of gardens.” In 1840, according to
Turton, _H. aspersa_ was sold in Covent Garden and elsewhere as a cure
for diseases of the chest, and was sent to the United States as a
delicacy. “The glassmen at Newcastle once a year have a snail feast;
they generally collect