effect of reflection upon its shadow would be little help to it as protection from its pursuers.

Among domestic cattle, except in the case of such as are wholly of one colour, the head and shoulders are almost invariably darker than other parts of the body. Why is this? With those that are blotched, or piebald, it never happens that the neck and shoulders are white and the bind-quarters dark. In the case of goats and dogs, and most other parti-coloured animals, no such rule seems to hold, and a piebald horse is altogether irregular in its markings. Another question suggests itself in regard to the horse-Why do white patches in a dark horse always appear in certain places, e.g., about the feet and the face? If there are white markings elsewhere they usually occur as a few spots under the saddle.

Piebald, or parti-coloured animals are seldom, if ever, found in a wild state doubtless the variation arises from the inter-breeding of individuals of different colours. Among birds, however, this characteristic is not uncommon, and does not seem to arise from the crossing of species.

There are many curious problems in the colouration of birds. Why, for instance, are song-birds usually sombre in colour, while the brilliantly coloured species have harsh and discordant voiceswith exceptions, of course? Why are eyes, and crescent-shaped spots, almost entirely confined to gallinaceous birds? Why, again, are the wings of so many birds marked with diagonal bars? questions have been suggested above.

Other

In the insect world there are also some interesting problems. The sombre colour of most moths is probably due to the fact that they are little exposed to the sun's light. The moths that exhibit brilliant hues, such as the burnets, the cinnabar, the tiger moth, some of the sphingidæ, &c., frequently show themselves in daylight ; though there are bright-coloured kinds that fly by night, and sombre ones that habitually fly by day. There are also many species of butterflies that are as dingy as the dullest of moths. In the highlycoloured moths, it is to be noted that the under-wings-those that are least exposed to the light-are the most brilliant with butterflies, on the other hand, the distribution of colour is usually equal in fore and hind wings. It may be remarked that butterflies close their wings in a different manner from moths; the result in each case, however, being that the dullest aspect of the wings is presented when the insect is at rest.

The peculiarities of marking in different species of lepidoptera are very interesting and not easy of explanation. Eyed spots, for example, are very common in butterflies, but are not so often seen in moths; while crescent-shaped markings are almost confined to the former class of insects. What is the reason, one would like to know, for the curious silver, or gold, or white markings, often

resembling letters or similar characters, occasionally found upon, or underneath, the wings of lepidoptera ? It will be observed that they are usually upon the side of the wing which is exposed when the insect is at rest, thus on the under-side in the case of butterflies, but on the upper surface of the fore-wings in moths. Familiar examples are the Comma butterfly (Vanessa C. Album), and the Silver Y moth (Plusia gamma); besides these, there are numerous species of moths that have an isolated white spot in the middle of the fore-wings, the use or reason of which is not apparent.

One other extremely remarkable circumstance may be noted in reference to the distribution of colour in butterflies and moths. In the former class every conceivable hue and tint is found; but with moths, while they also exhibit great variety of colour, there is an almost entire absence of one of the primary colours. Among British moths there is no really blue example, and blue spots and markings are only found in a very few species; indeed, are almost confined to the sphingidæ. On the other hand, there are many blue butterflies, and blue markings appear in many of the other species. A possible explanation may be offered. If, as has been suggested in relation to tinctmutation, colour depends on impressions received through the eyes, this may account for the brilliant colouring of butterflies and the dull hues of moths. In butterflies are reflected the bright flowers over which they hover, and it may be that the blue of the sky even is brought down to patch their motley coats. Moths that never see the blue sky never have its hues reflected in their wings. If we accept this theory, however, a crowd of new difficulties present themselves at once. Why is blue not found in all butterflies, and why are species, allied in race and habit, totally different from each other in marking and colour, e.g., the Red Admiral (Vanessa Atalanta) and the Peacock (Vanessa Io)? We must be content to leave these among the many mysteries of colour that science cannot explain. It is well there should be some things that we cannot understand, that we may not altogether lose the childish pleasures of wonder and admiration which science is too apt to rob us of.

GEORGE TROBRIDGE.

JULY

THE BIBLE, SCIENCE, AND EDUCATION.

THERE are three subjects which during the last generation have become of growing interest to all intelligent people. They are the Bible, Science and Education. They have each attained a new and commanding position of interest in the public mind. The new views of the Bible have given it a new value and importance; it may seem strange to say so, but so it is. As long as the old notions of the Bible prevailed, the interest taken in it was really a narrow and peculiar one. It was treated as a mysterious oracle, a supernatural phenomenon, quite outside the natural order of literature and history. Now that a better knowledge of its origin has brought it into line with other productions of the human mind, and it is no longer regarded as a fetish or an infallible set of documents, its contents can be examined and placed in their true position in relation to the general body of knowledge, historical, scientific or ethical, its cosmology, its traditions, its historical statements, its philosophy, and its religious and ethical principles can be compared with other conceptions, and where necessary adjusted to the knowledge of our times. But this more rational treatment of the Bible has really imparted to it a new and increased interest and value, and while we are no longer bound to accept as true its accounts of the creation of the world or the early history of mankind, or even to accept as accurate its accounts of many events in history, we are grateful for the light even these throw upon many questions affecting the growth of religious ideas and the development of social and religious institutions. While the ethical and religious principles of its biographical, devotional and prophetic books are appreciated more highly than ever.

Of course there are many people who are disturbed and offended by this changed estimate of the Bible, who cling to antiquated traditions, and are unable to adjust their religious ideas to the new conceptions.

Science. Until lately scientific ideas were the possession of the few, and the mass of people had neither interest nor knowledge in the work of scientific men. It was a professional rather than a popular body of knowledge. Now first of all a great advance has been made in the knowledge of the world, in the history and nature of all things, living and not living. The scientific man of a hundred years ago would probably be as much surprised as any one with the

nature of our knowledge of the world. The advances made in every department of knowledge are marvellous, and have given us an entirely new conception of the universe. But not only has this change come over our conceptions of nature, but with it has come also an extraordinary advance in our command over the forces of nature. The dominion of man has extended until he has brought into his service and harnessed for his daily use forces and elements the very existence of which a few years back were unknown.

And with these advances in knowledge has come also a most remarkable diffusion of the knowledge itself. The results of scientific discovery are made known to the generality of the public by means of libraries, cheap publications, and the daily press; and any man who can read may, if he will, be almost as well-informed as the men who themselves are engaged in research or who are professionally employed in teaching.

During the same recent period there has also been a remarkable extension of our system of education. Provision has been made for at least the primary instruction of every child in the kingdom, while the opportunities for further or higher education have, at the same time, been multiplied. And this education has been more or less directly or indirectly affected by the general advance in knowledge. But, at the present time, the adjustment is not complete, and hence difficulties arise.

For education, even of an elementary kind, must cover a wide field. It must include what we may term useful knowledge, it must embrace in a simple form some of the results of scientific discovery, and it is generally admitted that it cannot exclude religion and morals, and it is also generally contended that in Great Britain religion and morals are inseparably associated with the Bible.

Now, no difficulty would arise if the rational views of the Bible to which we have referred were generally held by educational authorities, school managers, and teachers; but unfortunately it is not so. These people who are largely responsible for the character of the education imparted, and are entirely responsible for the form in which religious instruction is given, whatever may be their individual opinions, appear to feel themselves bound to insist that the children shall be kept in the dark upon some subjects and that they should be brought up in the belief that the Bible is an infallible book, and that however much its cosmogony and its traditions may clash with our better knowledge, they must still be taught as though their truth had never been questioned; and until these authorities realise that religious principles can be taught and that the Bible may be read with advantage without accepting its cosmogony or its traditions as accurate representation of facts, this disastrous state of things will continue. It is disastrous to the children, whose minds must be

distracted by the apparent contradiction existing between what they are taught in the name of religion, and what they are taught, or will soon learn, in the name of science. And it is disastrous to the teachers who are compelled to teach in accordance with tradition. No such contradiction necessarily exists, it is entirely artificial, and arises only from the fact that knowledge is imparted in two departments, one of which lags behind the other. All that is needed is to bring religious knowledge more up to date and into harmony with our better knowledge of the world. But as long as education is so largely controlled by the clergy, who are pledged to maintain the truth of antiquated and obsolete notions, and by laymen who seem to think that it is their duty to allow themselves to be influenced in this matter by their clerical guides, this adjustment is impossible, and a reconciliation between religious teaching and modern knowledge will be indefinitely postponed.

The vast majority of religious people, especially of the clerical class, appear to have a very incorrect notion of what science is. To many of them the very word "science" is a bugbear, and it is regarded as in some way naturally antagonistic to religion. But science has no animus against religion, it is only concerned with attaining the most accurate knowledge of facts possible, and this it endeavours to do by careful observation, both simple and experimental, and by the use of every possible means of verifying the inferences or conclusions it draws from ascertained facts.

We hold, therefore, that it is the duty of educational authorities to free themselves from religious prejudices as well as from clerical influence, to place full confidence in the teachers appointed, and to refrain from binding them down to teach obsolete notions of the Bible; and especially to exercise more judgment in drawing up the syllabus of Biblical instruction for which they are responsible.

That some local education authorities are not yet intelligently capable of adapting their scheme of religious teaching to harmonise with our present state of knowledge has recently been demonstrated by an incident which occurred at a meeting of the Gloucestershire Education Committee.1 At their monthly meeting held at the Shire Hall, Gloucester, on April 30, a memorial, signed by thirty-one persons resident in the county, and chiefly interested in scientific study and research, was read by the chairman. The number of signatories might have been very much larger had not the promoters of the memorial apparently confined it to persons more or less professionally engaged in scientific pursuits or in teaching science subjects. For the opinions expressed by the memorialists upon the subjects specified are not at all limited to a professional class, but are now generally held by most educated people. As it was, however, the majority of the memorialists are persons well known 1 See report in Gloucester Journal, May 7, 1904.