Page:The Zoologist, 4th series, vol 3 (1899).djvu/256

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
230
THE ZOOLOGIST.

breeding or 'cross' breeding, we are making use of cross-fertilization. Further, I may add, the difference between intercrossing and hybridizing is one of degree, not of kind."

This book is beautifully illustrated, characteristically bound, and, unfortunately, unprovided with an index.


Wild Animals I have Known. By Ernest Seton Thompson.New York City: C. Scribner's Sons.

Mr. Thompson is the Carlyle of the animal world outside man: he sees the Zingis Khan, the Attila, the Napoleon among his Wolves, the Rachel among his Foxes, the bandit chief leading his Dogs. "What satisfaction would be derived from a ten-page sketch of the habits and customs of Man? How much more profitable it would be to devote that space to the life of some one great man. This is the principle I have endeavoured to apply to my animals." Thus we have a few vivid and brilliant sketches of animal life which we should unhesitantly describe as a new departure in fiction, were we not warned in a "Note to the Reader," "these stories are true." We are not led to the sceptical position by any unreality of the narrative, but rather marvel at the psychological sympathy with, and apprehension of, ideas and conceptions which are so commonly described as belonging to the instincts of brutes. The story of the King-wolf Lobo, who remains unconquered by his many justly-incensed enemies, and who by his cunning, or intellect, defies all their stratagems, till the death of his loved bitch Blanca renders him reckless, and proves his undoing, is only another story of the rise and fall of the great and much-admired man-wolf amongst ourselves. The Dog Bingo that must go wolfing, but comes home to die; the Fox Vix, courageous to frenzy on behalf of her young, are amongst some of the strongest characters of this more than interesting book. We are often warned against ascribing our own mental processes to other animals, and thus forming erroneous conclusions as to their cognitions and psychology. Do we not rather greatly err on the other side? Is it not more reasonable to argue that we have indeed passed on, but that in leaving them behind we have not altogether severed our