Mr. Blyth asserts (VI. 521.) that "the common chiffchaff of this country, S. lòquax Herbert, S. hippolais of other British authors) is a distinct species from the S. rufa." I agree in the opinion that the S. lòquax is identical with the S. hippolàis of British authors; but I do not stop here, as I consider the S. rùfa identical with it also, from the fact that the song, habits, and manners of the chiffchaff, as long known to me, accord fully as well with the descriptions of S. rùfa, as these are given by Continental authors, as they do with those of the "S. lòquax of Herbert," or "the S. hippolaàis of other British authors: " in addition to which, the dimensions and plumage of the specimen that I most particularly examined, and which was shot when in the act of uttering its singular song, coincided with those of the S. rùfa as they are detailed by Temminck, Rennie, &c.-W. Thompson. Donegal Square, Belfast, Nov. 28. 1833.

The Red Viper. (VI. 399. 526.)- Another specimen of this viper was brought me on Sept. 13. 1833: its length was 9 in. E. N. D. asserts (VI. 526.) that the red viper is the young of the common one; but I cannot consider this as proved, till the vipers of intermediate size are captured and described. I have never been able to procure any but full-grown vipers, and young ones yet unborn: the latter are greyish, with dark markings, and show no signs of the peculiar colour of the red viper. Now, although colour alone is not sufficient to characterise the species of Ophídia, yet any marked difference of size would certainly form a specific distinction. If, therefore, the red viper should prove never to exceed 10 in. in length, or if a series of young common vipers could be procured, of various sizes, but uniform in colour with the old ones, the distinctness of the red viper would be proved. I trust some of your readers may be able to decide this question. I am obliged to E. N. D. for his "information "that the number of scuta in snakes is variable; but if he will look at my communication, in p. 400., he will find that I have there stated the same thing.

The Black Viper, mentioned by Mr. Blyth (VI. 527.), differs from the common one only (I believe) in being of a darker colour; and is, therefore, deservedly considered a variety. H. E. Strickland. Nov. 22. 1833.

The Black Viper. (VI. 527.)- When E. N. D. says (VI. 526.) there is but one species of viper or poisonous reptile in England, he forgets the black viper (Coluber Préster of Linnæus); to the existence of which, in the west of England, Mr. Blyth also alludes doubtfully, in VI. 527. Of this species, I have seen, at different times, alive and at large, two specimens in the Isle of Wight, one of

which I succeeded in killing on Oct. 12. 1804. I was, at the time, in company with a gentleman resident in the island, who seemed to be familiar with the reptile, and informed me that it was very venomous; of which fact I entertain no doubt. "Os armatum est veneno diro," observes Linnæus, in Fauna Suecica; he gives, as a synonyme, "Vipera anglica nigricans" of Petiver: the animal, therefore, has long been known as a native of England. On a transient view, this species appears entirely of a uniform deep black colour, as described by Linnæus, "ater toto corpore;" but, on closer inspection, a row of angular spots, similar to that on the back of the common viper (C. Bèrus) is discernible, being of a still more intense black than the rest of the body. In size, shape, manners, and habits it seems exactly to resemble the common species; of which, I think, I have heard that it has been sometimes considered only a variety, and from which I am not aware that it differs, except in colour.

The red viper, mentioned in VI. 399. 526., I should suspect, was only the young state of the common species; the smaller specimens of which, I have observed, are generally of a brighter colour than the full-grown ones, and have the spots more inclining to red.—W. T. Bree. Allesley Rectory, Nov. 6. 1833.

Leptocephalus Morrisii Pennant (V. 313. 742., VI. 531.) seems doomed to be never accurately represented by the engraver. The cut, in VI. 531., which professes to be a copy of my drawing, is defective in one most essential point: the engraver has neglected to represent the pectoral fins, and has rendered the lateral line too strong. The engraving, with these exceptions, is very like the fish. -Henry Vietz Deere. Nov. 15. 1833.

The Authorship of the Prefixes, pro, meso, and meta, to the Limbs of Insects belongs to Mr. Newman; not to Mr. Haliday. I observe that Mr. Westwood has appended to some technical descriptions in VI. 495, note †, a remark expressly for the purpose of depriving Mr. Newman of the merit of the above prefixes, and of giving the said merit to Mr. Haliday. Mr. Newman first published the names in question at p. 400. of the Entomological Magazine (July 1. 1833). Mr. Haliday has nowhere published them, that I can find. Indeed, at p. 516. of the same magazine, published three months subsequently (Oct. 1. 1833.), he follows Meigen, in applying the term metatarsus to the last articulation of the tarsus; so that it is evident that Mr. Haliday not only did not originate these terms, but declines employing them.-I castle, Nov. 5. 1833.

"The barbarous nature of these compound Latin and Greek names [mesothorax and metathorax] (which may be remedied by employing the terms medithorax and postthorax)".-J. O. Westwood. (VI. 495. note †) In what lexicon does Mr. Westwood find thorax absent, and medi and post present, as Greek words? - Discipulus. Nov. 26. 1833. The additional British Species of Cicindela, alluded to, in VI. 533., as being enumerated in p. 554., is only a variety (of C. hýbrida Linn.), as Mr. Stephens has indicated (p. 554.) by the parenthesis. I am glad to see that Mr. Curtis's view of the subject has been adopted by E. N. D., in p. 532., and that he is borne out by the testimony of the Linnæan cabinet. Corroborator.

Hypercómpa dominula, the singular Variety of, described in VI. 540, 541.-The engraving (fig. 72.) in p. 541. represents the black blotches on the primary wings far too distinct and well defined: these markings, in the real specimen, are by no means so discernible. W. T. Bree. Nov. 6. 1833.

Encrinite versus Cyathocrinite (VI. 560., and the previous Discussions there indicated). A few additional words appear necessary to set myself right with Mr. Gilbertson. I cannot exactly comprehend Mr. Gilbertson's description, at p. 561. He says, "the line of dots from a terminates at the alimentary canal; that from b, upon one of the five plates surrounding it, which form the pelvis; c is placed upon the costals," &c. Now, according to this description, I find (as I am able to understand it) that the pelvis, in this specimen, formed a circle of less circumference than the vertebral column, and, consequently, was entirely hid by it. Is this fact, or is it error? Is this ever known to be the case in any crinoideal animal? It is not the case in any of those figured or described by Miller, nor in any instance that has come under my own immediate observation. Mr. Gilbertson proceeds to say, that, in my figure, "the whole of the pelvis, and nearly the whole of the costals, are hid by the column.' This, I presume, is erroneous: if the enlargement of the column, in my specimen, is natural, and not formed of extraneous matter, I think the above statement of Mr. Gilbertson would not be in accordance with the facts in our possession upon the subject. Does it not always follow, as a matter of course, that, where the column is enlarged and expanded at its junction with the pelvis, the pelvis is also widened and enlarged in the same proportion? as in the genus Apocrinìtes. This, I think, cannot be denied. The relative size of the bones, in my specimen, will, I think, prove that this opinion of Mr. Gilbertson is not tenable. The scapula (according to

Mr. Gilbertson's idea), which he describes as being in its proper place, in my figure, on the left of the column, is nearly as large as that part of the column which I have supposed to be extraneous. This scapula must rest upon a costal, and this costal upon a pelvic bone, or rather upon two pelvic bones; the costal upon which this scapula rests must be as large as the scapula itself; and the pelvic bones upon which the costal rests must be of equal dimensions: therefore, if the scapula be nearly equal in size to the column, the scapula, costal, and pelvis, united, must of necessity be much larger; and yet Mr. Gilbertson says, that, in my specimen, the column hides nearly the whole of these bones: this is a physical impossibility, for the thing covered is of greater magnitude than that which is said to cover it. Again: that the angular bones, in my specimen (VI. 126.), and to which I have referred in VI. 472., are really the bones of the pelvis, is, I think, absolutely proved by their position. The costals are placed upon the pelvis, I believe in every instance, in this way: one costal rests upon part of two pelvic bones, and covers the joints formed between them; and thus locks them together, precisely in the same way as a bricklayer places one brick to cover portions of two others, in laying one course over another, in building a wall: and this is exactly the position they occupy in my figure. If this bone were the scapula, the angular bone (the costal of Mr. Gilbertson) must have had a joint in the angle, in a line with the joint between the supposed scapula; but in my figure there is no such division. If the column absolutely covers the whole of the pelvis, and nearly the whole of the costals," it appears to me difficult to account for the use of the pelvic or costal plates; for by this means they would be united into one solid mass, and, therefore, their division into plates would appear to be almost useless. In conclusion, Mr. Gilbertson accuses me of constructing a nondescript. Whether he means this in good part or not, I can hardly say. I have already acknowledged that, in my opinion, it had not "hitherto been figured or described;" and it was because I considered it a nondescript that I communicated it to this Magazine, and endeavoured to furnish a description of it. If nothing is to be made public but what is already described, then must science have already reached its limits; and the naturalist may sit down in listlessness, and exclaim, "There is no new thing under the sun!" Mr. Gilbertson sums up his observations by stating, that it is a desire to check the progress of error that alone has induced him to controvert my statements; I beg to inform him that there is no other motive influencing me. I am not at all anxious to prove that I am in possession of the lily encrinite

from a new locality, and to make my specimen a lily encrinite, whether or not; for this would be mere childishness. The fact is this: the remains of a crinoideal animal fell into my hands; I fancied it to be more nearly allied to the genus Encrinites than to any other; this opinion I have given; I have given my reasons for that opinion; and I have defended it: whether that opinion be right or wrong, others must judge. That it is a nondescript is no fault of mine; I have argued for its being such and, if Mr. Gilbertson would, in some way, publish figures of his specimens, which "have a much greater claim" to be considered as encrinites than my specimen, perhaps the other opinion which I have stated (VI. 474.), that the encrinites pass by a regular gradation of form into the cyathocrinites, would receive additional confirmation, if not full proof. Mr. Gilbertson says that both specimens are the same; that is, that mine is Cyathocrinìtes tuberculatus. This is impossible : the name itself contradicts it. There is not a single tubercle upon my specimen: it is almost as smooth as the paper upon which I am writing. Mr. Gilbertson has not noticed the relative proportions of the bones which I have pointed out in the different specimens. I should be extremely glad to be put in possession of figures of the specimens mentioned by Mr. Gilbertson; and I think he would be doing the world a service by publishing them. Let us be put in possession of as much knowledge as possible, in order to come to a clear understanding of these singular animal remains.-C. Conway. Nov. 12. 1833.

ART. II. Queries and Answers.

"ON the supposed Connection of Vicissitudes of the Seasons and prevalent Disorders with Volcanic Emanations," &c. (VI. 289 to 308.) — Although the author (the Rev. W. B. Clarke) of that interesting communication does not positively maintain a closer connection between events which are apparently dissimilar than that of juxtaposition, I think he has established a high degree of probability that the connection is that of cause and effect, in numerous instances which he has adduced. I propose, at a future time, to offer a few observations on some of the facts stated by Mr. Clarke, my object in the present letter being merely to request farther information from that gentleman respecting the "symptoms of renewed action in the extinct craters of the Eifel;" and, again, "symptoms of renewed action in the extinct craters of Auvergne." (VI. 301.) The date of the latter is given Dec. 9. 1828; but no authorities for either event are stated. It would