and Selby's 'Illustrations of Ornithology,' while Macgillivray and Yarrell were publishing their works, which will be remembered and consulted as long as naturalists feel an interest in British Birds.
How much has transpired since then, which now almost reads as ancient history! In 1847 Hooker started for India on his memorable journey, which ultimately produced the well-read 'Himalayan Journals.' In 1848 Bates left England for Para, and the narrative of 'The Naturalist on the Amazons' may be said to have commenced. 1854 found Wallace at Singapore, and from that day the biological story of 'The Malay Archipelago' has been told, followed, and imitated. In 1843 South Africa was little known, and its Mammalia to be found in vast herds by those who could penetrate the country. To-day the country is open, but the Mammalia a vanishing quantity. Délegorgue completed his journey—known to all naturalists—in 1844; the conclusion of the zoological results of Sir Andrew Smith's expedition appeared in 1849; Gordon Cumming did not tell his wonderful tale of the wild life of the veld till 1850, before Mauch and Holub inaugurated the new era. Central Africa was marked "desert," at least on school maps; to-day we tabulate its fauna, and read Emin Pasha. And, last of all, with national pride, we may refer to the Voyage of the 'Challenger,' and the volumes devoted to its zoological results.
But, greater than all, is the difference in our philosophical conception of the teachings of Biology. In 1859 Darwin published his 'Origin of Species,' and from that date modern biology will recognise the commencement of a new period. As in San Francisco, it is said, everything dates back to 1849, so our present zoological conceptions take birth from 1859.
Of the contributors to our first number probably J.W. Douglas is now the only survivor. The aims and scope of the publication are precisely the same as in 1843—bionomic primarily. In philosophy there is great change, but no new creed. It is undoubtedly the case that a naturalist may exist without being an evolutionist; it is equally true that evolutionists can be found who are neither Lamarckians nor Darwinists; and it is certain that Darwinists are to be found in plenty who are quite outside the school of neo-Darwinism, and who have no desire to risk wrecking a great conception on speculative side issues. Hence 'The Zoologist' welcomes all phases of thought, but stipulates for facts rather than theories, argument more than advocacy. All contributors may at least speculate on what our Journal may be made for the cause of Zoology during the next century. The summing up will then be in other hands.
