book, materially, and that which concerns its intellectual self; that is, its way of putting things—such a handling of teaching processes as recognizes that good teaching is an art, and the true teacher an artist. As good tools for teacher and learner, American school geographies, arithmetics, readers, and lately grammars, are not excelled abroad. It is noteworthy, however, that hitherto so much could not be said of American efforts in the matter of elementary schoolbooks on science. Herein has England set us an example. The "Science Primers," reprinted by the Appletons, are very remarkable books as showing how a high knowledge in these departments may be set before a little child. However, in this matter of American science-teaching of the little ones, the tide is setting in. It must be admitted that in every thing pertaining to books, and elementary teaching of animated Nature, we are far behind England. Dr. Hooker's "Child's Book of Nature" is the best of its class, though sadly needing rewriting. But when we come to zoölogy proper, a history of our efforts at elementary bookmaking is more interesting than creditable. The earliest serious effort is that of Daniel Haskel—"The Juvenile Class-Book of Natural History," 1841. It is for children, and the author boasts in the following style over its systematic arrangement: "The classification, which forms an important feature of the work, is founded on external resemblance and visible habits.... This classification is much more simple, and better adapted to the young mind, than that of Linnæus, which is founded on occult resemblances, and ranks the cow and the whale, animals which inhabit different elements, and are otherwise very unlike, in the same general class, Mammalia." As to man, he says, "Buffon divides mankind into six classes," and he does likewise. But the word "class," though often used, has no certain sense in this little book. Leaving man, the work is divided into Quadrupeds, Birds, Fishes, Reptiles, and Insects. The quadrupeds are divided into thirteen classes, as first class, second class, etc. Then come the "Unclassed Animals," viz., "the elephant, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, tapir, camel, Arabian camel, llama, camelopard, bear, badger, raccoon, kangaroo, opossum, ant-eater, sloth, jerboa." He says these "are animals which cannot be classed, but each of which by itself forms a distinct species." The birds are given in like manner in six classes, with "unclassed birds, the ostrich, cassowary, dodo." The fishes are in four classes. The first class embraces the cachelot, grampus, porpoise, dolphin, whale." As for the sword-fish, he is left out in the cold. The "fourth class" of fishes embraces the lobster, crab, tortoise, oysters, snails, and such.
The next attempt at a natural history for schools was (we speak from memory) by Abram Ackerman. It was a mere compilation, with not a particle of science behind it or in it. It had the credit, however, of not being the injurious book that Haskel's was. In 1849 appeared "Class-Book of Zoölogy: designed to afford to Pupils in Common Schools and Academies a Knowledge of the Animal Kingdom. By Prof. B. Jaeger." The educational plane was not then up to this little book, which, as a classification, or systematic exhibit of the animal kingdom, had not its equal; and, besides this, much of it was really American, but zoölogy proper it utterly failed to teach. Prof. Worthington Hooker's "Natural History, for the Use of Schools and Families," appeared in 1860. It is a good book, and holds its own in the market because of its pleasant and readable style. As a classification it is too meagre, and of zoology it contains but little. We must not pass unmentioned the Ruschenberger series of "First Books in Natural History," begun in 1842. These were little else than translations from the text of Milne Edwards and Achille Comte. Very excellent little manuals they were, but extending, as they did, to eight volumes, they lost all claim to be called a "Primer of Natural History." "Principles of Zoölogy, by Agassiz and Gould," 1848, is a high text-book; and of a like nature must be regarded "A Manual of Zoölogy," by Sanborn Tenney, 1865, with its smaller companion by the same author; both good books so far as systematizing goes.
It is evident, then, that a good, true American book, worthy of being called a "Primer of Zoölogy," had not appeared. In the fullness of belief, we avow our con-
