fell out of the fire on to its back, which caused it to rush about the room, when the cinders were deposited in different places, which set fire to the carpet.

That mischievous animal the monkey has lent its aid to the devouring element. Fires have occurred through its agency, in a similar manner to cats and dogs, also through its playing with fire in various ways. In one instance a monkey upset a charcoal brazier, and set a room on fire. Many-yes, very many-fires have occurred through our domestics hunting bugs and other small fry by the light of a candle or lamp. In their anxiety, especially, to hunt fleas, they forget they may and have produced an enemy more to be dreaded. Many fires also occur through persons fumigating apartments to get rid of bugs and various kind of vermin.

A few instances have occurred through the concentration of the sun's rays upon glass fish-globes. On the 19th October, 1845, at two P.M., Mr. Philbrook's residence, Mill-street, Worcester, was set on fire through the concentration of the sun's rays upon a water-croft standing upon a table. Coloured bottles in chemists' shops, cracks, and bull's-eyes in glass have been known to focus sufficient heat from the sun to set buildings on fire.

Fires have occurred through the spontaneous ignition of pigeon's dung under the slates and tiles of houses. Professor Buckland traced two fires to this cause.-See Builder, 28th September, 1844.

Birds' nests under the eaves and wooden crevices of houses, have been frequently set on fire through sparks from a neighbouring chimney, and have contained sufficient inflammable matter to set fire to the buildings.

Although I have given dogs the credit of producing work for the firemen, still it would not be fair if I were to omit to mention that they have frequently discovered and given timely notice of fires; and many an anecdote can be told of the very great interest dogs take in and at fires.

Chief Fire-station, Manchester.

ALFRED TOZER.

FOSSIL TEETH FROM THE NORTHUMBRIAN COAL-MEASURES.

DU

URING the last few months I have been examining microscopically all the teeth that are known and named as belonging to the upper or true coal-measures, and while pursuing these investigations, I alighted upon two teeth that were certainly quite new to me, and I am inclined to think they have never been discovered in any other locality, as I cannot find mention of similar or anything like similar teeth in Owen's "Odontography," Agassiz's "Poissons fossiles," or any other paleontological work to which I have access. One tooth resembles

somewhat in shape and structure a tooth of the Selachian Ctenoptychius, though there are striking differences to be observed; the other has no ally that I can discover.

The first was sent to me as a specimen of Ctenoptychius by Mr. Salt, of Newsham, but a microscopical examination at once made it evident that it could not be a tooth of that fish, though probably belonging to the same family. It is very small, being rather more than half an inch in length, and one-fifth of an inch in height; the superior surface is convex and the inferior is concave; the edges are narrow and rounded, from the convexity being greater than the concavity. The superior surface is denticulated, but the denticles are not approximately uniform, as in Ctenoptychius (fig. 57),

but decrease rapidly to mere points (fig. 56). The four large denticles are rounded, and have on their free surfaces from two to three sharp shining points, the largest of these points being only in. in height. There is also a marked difference between the two teeth in the form of the base, as will be easily seen on comparing the above two engravings.

The minute structure also differs very much, so much, in fact, that it alone would cause the two teeth to be allotted to different genera.

In Ctenoptychius, the medullary canals are large throughout the whole body of the tooth, they do not become smaller as they approach the denticular surface, they branch and anastomose very freely, the branches being quite as large as the original canal; thus it is impossible to say whether the canals, as a rule, run parallel with the axis of the tooth (fig. 61). From all the canals spring numerous and very large calcigerous tubes, some of the largest measuring as much as of an inch in diameter, the average being about of an inch. The tubules which arise from the canals in the body of the tooth are very short, branch once or twice, the branches anastomosing with their neighbours, and they generally run at right angles to the canal from which they spring; but those that proceed from the canals near the denticles run parallel with the axis of the tooth, tend to a fasciculate arrangement, do not branch nor anastomose much, and retain the same diameter throughout their course until they are close to the periphery, when they become a little finer, but are still comparatively coarse tubes (fig. 63). The tubules can be easily observed under a power of 20 diameters. There is not a vestige of ganoine or fish-enamel in any of the sections in my possession, or in the sections that I have examined belonging to other collectors.

microscope, and also in the hope of obtaining by this means some clue to its family or genus. The section showed very evidently that the tooth was a new one, that it belonged to the class of fishes, and if one could judge from such small data as a single

proceeds in. up the tooth. At its commencement it is very broad, stretching from enamel to enamel; but as it passes up the tooth it rapidly contracts, so that when it has proceeded th of an inch, the cavity is only in. broad: from this point it gradually becomes narrower. The dentine varies in its thickness according to the shape of the pulpcavity. The tubules which ramify in it are very numerous and exceedingly fine, varying from 20000 in. to odoo in. in diameter; they do not branch or anastomose except when close to the periphery, some of the branches being so fine that I cannot measure them. The tubules spring from the pulp-cavity and proceed in straight lines; their

Fig. 62. Vertical Section of two denticles of Ctenoptychius,

X 80.

Fig. 61. Vertical Section of Tooth of Ctenoptychius, x 20.

rounded, giving the tooth a rather squat appearance. Microscopical examination shows that it is composed of unvascular dentine, with a layer of enamel all round the free edge. The pulp-cavity

course is parallel with the axis of the tooth, and those that arise from the sides of the cavity have a slight tendency outwards. The enamel borders the whole of the free edge of the tooth; at the base it is unsupported by the dentine, and forms one of the boundaries of the pulp-cavity; its average thickness is in.: no structure can be detected, although I have examined it under a power of about 600 diameters; nor do any of the dentinal tubules pass into it, as is generally the case in fish-enamel.

Until I am more certain that these are really newly-discovered teeth, I shall not attempt to name or classify them, for I do not wish to commit

Professor has been removed before he could prepare this work, the whole field of Odontography is open to other inquirers.

W. J. BARKAS, M.R.C.S.E., &c. 1

VATED VEGETABLES.

Br H. G. GLASSPOOLE.

No. I. THE POTATO.

Fig. 63. Vertical Section of New Tooth, x 20. Newsham), he would find much that would clear the way for a better knowledge of the fishes, reptiles, &c., already known, and much that would be entirely new to science. It is the scattered way in which these researches are undertaken, and the want of a systematic work illustrating and de scribing all the latest discoveries, that render the study of the fossils of the carboniferous strata so difficult and unsatisfactory. Agassiz's "Poissons fossiles" is certainly a splendid work, but it contains much that is now known to be incorrect, and nothing of the discoveries of the last twenty-eight years. Owen's "Odontography" is excellent as far as it goes, but it is also much in arrear of our present knowledge. The late Professor Agassiz evidently saw the necessity for a work in which the latest discoveries should be described and classified, for in a letter which he wrote to Sir P. de M. Grey Egerton just before his death, he lamented the want of time to pursue investigations into the fossil teeth of Selachians. If he had been spared to make these researches, it was his intention to have published the result as a continuation of his "Poissons fossiles." Such a work, comprising only Selachian teeth, would leave a large field to be inquired into; viz., the teeth of ganoids, laby

IN

N the following pages I purpose to give an historical account of those vegetables which are in common use among us, and may be classed as some of the necessaries of life.

When the Romans invaded England, we are told by their historians, they found the natives supporting themselves on the rudest fare,-uncultivated roots and wild fruits. This must be rather an exaggerated account, as no doubt the brave inhabitants who opposed Cæsar and his legions fed upon the flesh of animals taken in the chase, and which at that period abounded in this country. The Romans we know, from the works of Pliny, Columella, and others, were famous for agricultural and horticultural pursuits. The market-gardens around ancient Rome were cultivated by the chief men of the city, who were also the proprietors, and they themselves tilled the ground with their own hands. To this nation we undoubtedly owe much of our present civilization, for, amidst all their conquests, they never forgot to carry forward the useful arts of life; and the remains of their beautiful and extensive villas, which every now and then are discovered under our soil, show us plainly that they did not neglect to introduce, even to this their distant possession, some of the comforts and gratifications of their luxurious city. When the Romans left our shores, the country was given over to the ravages of the Saxons and Danes, who kept up almost a constant warfare with the inhabitants, so that agriculture and the other sciences of a civilized race gradually disappeared.

There are many excellent roots and nourishing herbs indigenous to Britain, but as the art of cultivating these was unknown, they could not have had that nutritious character they now possess. Many of the fruit-trees and plants introduced by the Romans were never altogether lost, but became degenerated for a time, until restored in after-years by the monks, those constant guardians of horticulture.

We have no works on plants in English before the sixteenth century. In 1552 all books on geography and science in this country were ordered to be destroyed, being, as it was supposed, infested with

magic. So it is almost impossible to know much about the state of gardening before the reign of Henry VIII. Harrison, who wrote "A Description of England,” mentions that "herbs, fruits, and roots, such as yearly grow out of the ground, were very plentiful in the reign of Edward I. and after his days, but in process of time they were neglected; so that from Henry IV. to the beginning of the reign of Henry VIII. there was little or no use for them in England." But it is most likely in those days the constant wars between the houses of Lancaster and York prevented persons turning their attention to anything like horticulture.

During the reign of the last-mentioned monarch rapid strides were made in horticulture-the surgeons and apothecaries began to cultivate medicinal herbs; but Hume the historian says it was not until the end of Henry's reign that any salads, carrots, turnips, or other edible roots, were produced in England: all such vegetables were chiefly imported from the Netherlands, and were very dear; for it is stated that in 1595 a sum equal to 20s. was paid at the port of Hull for six cabbages and a few carrots. In the sixteenth century a cabbage from Holland was deemed an acceptable present.

The inhabitants of Flanders and the Low Countries were very industrious God-fearing people, and had long been famous for their horticulture.

About 1524 a cruel religious persecution drove numbers from their country, and they came to England, where an asylum was offered them. Many settled at Sandwich, and soon discovered the suitability of the soil for gardening, which, after a short time, enabled them to supply the country round with plenty of vegetables, and at a more reasonable price. The demand for their produce in London was so great that a body of the exiles were induced to remove nearer the metropolis, and they settled at Battersea, Bermondsey, and Wandsworth, where many of the garden-grounds planted by them flourish to the present day.

Since the reign of Elizabeth horticulture has steadily progressed in all its branches, and those vegetables which were once a luxury confined to the tables of the rich, have now become a necessary with the poor.

The most important class of roots that first demands our attention is the Potato; and the history of its discovery and culture affords us an interesting example of progress under difficulties, as for some time after its introduction it was undervalued and its cultivation neglected by the scientific and practical gardeners of those days. The discovery of America by Columbus, which had aroused the spirit of maritime adventure and the thirst for foreign dominion in Europe, at last infected our country, and in 1584 Queen Elizabeth sent out a fleet "to discover and plant new countries not possessed by Christians," under the auspices of Sir Walter

Raleigh. Thomas Heriot, the mathematician, was one of these adventurers: he, with the rest, returned home within two years, and it has been supposed that to him we are indebted for the first knowledge of the potato, which he describes, under the article of Roots, as an American plant called openawk. The roots of this plant," says he, "are round, some as large as a walnut, others much larger; they grow in damp soils, many hanging together as if fixed on ropes. They are good food either boiled or roasted."

From numerous passages in the Elizabethan dramatists, it appears that the potato was a great dainty in those days; but this refers to the sweet potato (Batatus edulis), which was cultivated in Spain and Portugal and imported to this country. It is to this plant that Shakespeare alludes in the "Merry Wives of Windsor" (Act v. Sc. 5), where Falstaff says

"Let it rain potatoes, and hail kissing comforts! "

Gerarde mentions in his Herbal, published in 1597, the common potato as Battata Virginiana, having received the roots from Virginia, which he cultivated in his garden, and gives an accurate description of both the plant and flower. He recommends the root to be eaten as a delicate dish, and not as common food.

The introduction of this root into Ireland by Sir Walter Raleigh is well authenticated, for it is stated in the manuscript minutes of the Royal Society that S. R. Southwell mentioned to the fellows that his grandfather was the first to cultivate the potato in that country, and for this valuable root he was indebted to Sir Walter. Among the anecdotes related of Raleigh is, that on his returning to his estate at Youghal, in the county of Cork, he gave some of the roots of the potato to his gardener, desiring him to plant them in the spring. In August these plants flourished, and in September produced fruit, but so different to the gardener's expectations that in an ill humour he carried the potato-apples or berries to his master. "Is this," said he, "the fine fruit from America you prize so highly?" Sir Walter either was, or pretended to be, ignorant of the matter, and told the gardener, since that was the case, to dig up the weed and throw it away. The gardener obeyed, and in rooting out the weeds found a bushel of potatoes.

Dr. Campbell, in his Political Survey, states that this plant was not introduced into Ireland until the year 1610, while other writers affirm that it was grown there at a much earlier period, and indeed try to make it equally probable that it is a native vegetable of the country. It is known, however, that Captain Hawkins carried the Spanish potato to Ireland in 1565. The claim to its greater antiquity in that country was made by Sir Lucius O'Brien, who stated to Mr. Arthur Young, that the venerable Bede mentioned this plant as being in Ireland about