An apology is due to the members of the Natural History Society of Montreal, and to the readers of "The Canadian Record of Science" generally, for the delay of several months which has occurred in issuing the magazine. The responsible editor, appointed at the annual meeting of the Society in 1898, was occupied throughout the summer months in actively prosecuting the practice of his profession, and had no time to devote. to the interests of the Natural History Society as bound up in the publication of the "Record of Science." After returning to his academical work in the city, he was taken seriously ill, and was for a long time laid aside from duty, and, when he did recover, he had so much leeway to make up in his professional work proper that work on the Society's journal had to be still further postponed. But the Committee now in charge of the publication will endeavor to overtake lost ground, and hope to present the "Record" regularly each quarter. It will be conducted for the present on the old lines, laid down when the new series was begun in 1884, and 1 "will contain, in addition to the Society's proceedings, original papers on scientific subjects of interest to Canadians and reprints of scientific papers published elsewhere which deal with Canadian materials." All communications and correspondence concerning the "Record" should be addressed, THE EDITOR CANADIAN RECORD, 32 University Street, Montreal. ZOOLOGICAL PROBLEMS FOR THE NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY OF MONTREAL. By E. W. MACBRIDE. The subject matter of the study of natural history is of wide, one might almost say, illimitable extent, embracing, as it does, all animated nature in all its infinite variety. Compared to it, the studies of physics and chemistry appear of limited scope. In so vast a field, it is but natural that first one aspect and then another aspect should have rivetted the attention of students. In the early part of the century, the main object of the naturalist was to catalogue the different varieties of living things which he saw around him, distinguishing them from one another by external and easily recognized marks. Later, the celebrated anatomists, Cuvier, Owen and many others, laid the foundation of what has been called transcendental zoology, that is, they recognized that there were deepseated agreements in the general plan of structure running through whole groups of animals, and that to properly classify them, animals must be thoroughly examined, internal structure as well as external features being taken into account. The meaning of these deep-seated unities underlying differences puzzled the earlier anatomists very much. They were wont to speak of animals having a common plan of structure, and to explain that by plan they meant. an idea in the mind of the Creator. With the advent of Darwin, all this was changed, and it was recognized that the fundamental agreement in structure of many different animals implied community of descent. This enlightening and fascinating idea gave a tremendous spur to anatomical investigation, and for a time the dissecting room and the laboratory almost monopolized the attention of natural history students, especially when, at the same time, the new mode of interpreting the development or life history of animals, as a recapitulation of the ancestral history of the race, came into the foreground. If we Of late years, however, there has been somewhat of a revulsion of feeling in this respect. It has been remembered that an animal is not a mere piece of intricately constructed matter, but a working machine, and in order to properly understand it, it must be studied living amidst its natural surroundings. We ought to beware of repeating the mistake of the older anatomists and over-emphasizing one side of the truth. We cannot, it is true, fully explain the structure of an animal with reference to its present habits and surroundings. could, all evidence for the descent of different animals. from a common ancestor would disappear. No, an animal is to be compared to a piece of wax which has been passed through many different moulds, each of which has left its impress, and the newer impress has never entirely obliterated the traces of the older. Each form-impressing mould will then represent a set of circumstances and of habits possessed by the ancestors of the animal at one period of its existence, and the present habits and environment represent, so to speak, the last mould into which the piece of wax has been pressed. In studying the surroundings and habits, then, we are not merely trying to explain some part of an animal's structure; we are really observing the mode in which evolution, that is modification of structure, has taken place. Some Now it is surprising how few accurate observations we have on the relation of animals to their environment. The older naturalists were content, as I have said, to classify, interspersing here and there some remarks as to habits, which were generally erroneous. Yet there are few subjects of study more important to zoology. of the most fundamental questions in the science depend for their solution on such studies. Chief among these is the amount of weight to be assigned to the principle which was regarded by Darwin as the driving power of evolution, viz., natural selection. I need hardly remind you that by natural selection is meant the theory, that the struggle for existence, which inevitably follows from the tendency of every species of animal to produce far more young than can possibly survive, will select survivors with some advantageous peculiarity, which peculiarity will, in this way, become a character of the species. Now, when stated in these broad, general terms, few would deny the truth of the theory, and certainly when we examine the larger differences which separate families and orders from each other, we can often show their relation to differences in surroundings and habits, but the question at issue is whether the minute differences which separate species from species can be so explained. High authorities have taken opposite sides on this question, and it can only be settled by systematic open air study. If the marks of species are not so to be interpreted, then we want to know what is their explanation, and, above all, what keeps allied species from intermingling. The first duty of a Natural History Society is to prepare an accurate list of the species of animals from the surrounding country. I am well aware that our Society has done this in several groups of the animal kingdom, The The but there are others in which it is yet to be done. Vertebrata are, of course, all fairly well known. Entomological Society, which, in my humble judgment, ought to be a section of this Society, has, no doubt, prepared a list of the insects, but I doubt very much whether any list of the Crustacea and Arachnida, to say nothing of the various groups of worms, has been made. Once such a list has been made, innumerable interesting problems suggest themselves, of which I can select two or three as examples. We have, for instance, at least, four species of frogs in the neighboring country. The great bull-frog, or Canadian nightingale, Rana Catesbiana, attains a considerable size, and has a dull, yellowish, brown skin, sprinkled with minute black dots. Not attaining quite this size is the green frog, Rana clamata, the skin of which is of a uniform dull green, and which has an immensely developed tympanum or ear-drum. The common grass frog, Rana halecena, is much smaller, and has skin varying in color from bright green to golden brown. and is diversified by oblong black patches. Finally, we have the wood frog, said to be identical with the common English species, Rana temporaria. This variety has a uniformly brown skin above and yellow beneath. I have not yet come across examples of this species. Now the question arises, do these species differ from one another in their mode of life or not, and are their specific marks related to their surroundings? With regard to the grass frog, Rana halecena, I may mention an observation which I myself made. I noticed at Ste. Rose a specimen on the grassy bank of the river. When not moving it was absolutely impossible to see it, the black patches on the green ground harmonized so completely with the color of the blades of grass and the shadows they threw. Now, it is stated that the bull-frog rarely leaves the water, and one might surmise that the muddy color of the skin resembled that of the muddy |