Before concluding I will say a few words as to the very curious forms presented by certain seeds and fruits. The pods of lotus, for instance, quaintly resemble a bird's foot, even to the toes; whence the specific name of one species, ornithopodioides; those of hippocrepis remind one of a horseshoe; those of trapa bicornis have an absurd resemblance to the skeleton of a bull's head. These likenesses appear to be accidental, but there are some which probably are of use to the plant. For instance there are two species of scorpiurus, the pods of which lie on the ground, and so curiously resemble the one (S. subvillosa), a centipede, the other (S. vermiculata), a worm or caterpillar, that it is almost impossible not to suppose that the likeness must be of some use to the plant.

The pod of Biserrula Pelecinus also has a striking resemblance to a flattened centipede; while the seeds of Abrus precatorius, both in size and in their very striking color, mimic a small beetle, Artemis circumusta.

Mr. Moore has recently called attention to other cases of this kind. Thus the seed of Martynia diandra much resembles a beetle with long antennæ several species of Lupins have seeds much like. spiders, and those of Dimorphochlamys, a gourdlike plant, mimic a piece of dry twig. In the common castor oil plants, though the resemblance is not so close, still at a first glance the seeds might readily be taken for beetles or ticks. In many Euphorbiaceous plants, as for instance in Jatropha the resemblance is even more striking. The seeds have a central line resembling the space between the elytra, dividing and slightly diverging at the end, while between them the end of the abdomen seems to peep; at the anterior end the seeds possess a small lobe, or caruncle, which mimics the head or thorax of the insect, and

which even seems specially arranged for this purpose; at least it would seem from experiments made at Kew that the carunculus exercises no appreciable effect during germination. These resemblances might benefit the plant in one of two ways. If it be an advantage to the plant that the seeds should be swallowed by birds, their resemblance to insects might lead to this result. On the other hand if it be desirable to escape from graminivorous birds, then the resemblance to insects would serve as a protection. We do not, however, yet know enough about the habits of these plants to solve this question.

On

Indeed, as we have gone on, many other questions will, I doubt not, have occurred to you, which we are not yet in a position to answer. Seeds, for instance, differ almost infinitely in the sculpturing of their surface. But I shall wofully have failed in my object tonight if you go away with the impression that we know all about seeds. the contrary there is not a fruit or a seed, even of one of our commonest plants, which would not amply justify and richly reward the most careful study. In this, as in other branches of science, we have but made a beginning. We have learnt just enough to perceive how little we know. Our great masters in natural history have immortalized themselves by their discoveries, but they have not exhausted the field; and if seeds and fruits cannot vie with flowers in the brilliance and color with which they decorate our gardens and our fields, still they surely rival, it would be impossible to excel them, in the almost infinite variety of the problems they present to us, the ingenuity, the interest, and the charm of the beautiful contriv ances which they offer for our study and our admiration.-Fortnightly Review.

THE wonders of the telegraph have been sufficiently dwelt on. Its praises have been sung in prose and verse. Dithyrambs have been lavished on the marvellous invention which has enabled man to put a girdle round the earth, to hold direct converse with the antipodes, and to annihilate time and space. Now, while in no way gainsaying the wonderful nature of the invention, or depreciating its importance and general usefulness to mankind, we may be permitted to observe that these great advantages are not entirely without drawback. The telegraph is not always, or to everybody, the unmitigated boon and blessing enthusiastic admirers have represented it to be. As a messenger, it is distinctly uncertain; and those who have suffered from this uncertainty may perhaps be pardoned if they look with. somewhat diminished fervor on the boon conferred upon them. In short, there is to this, as to most questions, another side; and it is with this other side that we propose to deal in the following pages.

We have said that, as a messenger, the telegraph is uncertain. Thereby we mean that to some extent from causes which we shall hereafter endeavor to indicate there is always more or less uncertainty attaching to a telegram, both in regard to the length of time it may be on its journey, and in regard to the way in which the wording may be reproduced. Especially on this latter point is it that there is so much liability to go wrong. Too often some kind of tricksy

spirit, some telegraphic Puck, seems to preside over the destinies of the telegram, with malicious perversity altering the sense, and seeming to take a pleasure in thwarting man, and playing practical jokes upon him.

It might a priori be imagined that, though the telegraph must of necessity share the common lot of things human

that of being liable to err-yet no exceptional tendency in that direction ought to exist. So far as concerns the mechanical part of the invention, this is undoubtedly so; the mechanical part rarely fails. Although we have it on the authority of the Postmaster-General, in one of his reports, that on one occasion a party of friends telegraphed that they were all right," which, owing to a mechanical defect of the apparatus, came out that they were "all tight;" yet, on the whole, errors which arise from defects of apparatus are, we believe, very rare. It is the "personal equation" which has to be allowed for. The human element plays so considerable a part in matters telegraphic, that the human propensity to err finds proportionately wide scope. And this tells in two ways. It applies to him who sends a telegram as well as to the operator who manipulates it. Imagine for a moment what the process is: you, let us say, wish to send a telegram; you write out your message; perhaps you pride yourself on your handwriting (most people do who write indistinctly), but you are not aware how incompletely you form many of your letters, and how easy

it is for a stranger to your handwriting to misread some of the words, especially if the indistinct words happen to be names. Hence liability the first to error. The intelligent telegraph clerk (or not intelligent, as the case may be) reads over your message to himself, and reads it, as he imagines, correctly. Not so, however. One of the words-say "ten"-is written so as to look more like "two ;" and he reads it for "two." The sense of the message is in no way affected, and he does not question the word. Or it may be a name which looks to the clerk more like some other name. Supposing, however, that he reads the word correctly, the chances are great that the clerk who despatches will fall into the very error which the former has avoided. Thus, even in the initial stage there is a great liability to error. This is increased by the fact that telegrams so often have to be written in a hurry; and it is astonishing what mistakes we all make in such circumstances. It is by no means an unknown occurrence for persons to omit to insert the essential word in a telegram; while, we have heard, it is not at all infrequent for them to put down as the address the name of some totally different town from that which they had in their minds, and imagined they had written. But even supposing these shoals avoided, the rocks ahead are many. Each telegraph operator takes down the words as he receives them; and his liability to error is twofold. He may rightly apprehend the words, and yet in writing make one or more so indistinct that when he or another operator comes to transmit the message a stage further, the words are misread; or he may misapprehend the signal sent to him, and thus write down a wrong word. When this possibility of going astray is multiplied, as it often is several times, by the message having to undergo several separate transmissions, perhaps the marvel is that so many thousands of telegrams should go right, rather than that out of the whole number many should go wrong.

In any system of symbols for letters, consisting of such simple elements as the telegraph alphabet does-viz., dots and dashes-it is inevitable that there should be considerable similarity between the symbols of some words-a

similarity which is, of course, productive of mistakes. We may take it that the Morse system of telegraph symbols, having been adopted universally throughout the telegraphing world, is the best for the purpose that has been devised; and we presume that it is not likely now to be improved upon. And yet there are many words which are so perilously alike that errors in them are sure to recur from time to time. Το name but one instance, "bad" and dead" are composed of the same number of dots and dashes, the sole difference being that there is in "dead" a "space" or pause wanting in "bad" -a difference so slight as to require the nicest perception to distinguish it. We will give the two words in Morse spelling, so as to afford an ocular demonstration :

It unfortunately happens that uneducated people have a special affection for the phrase, "He is bad," for "He is ill;" and this phrase, when used in telegrams thus-" Father is bad, come directly," gets altered into "Father is dead, come directly.

The universal adoption of the telephone, should that ever become practicable, would, we fear, by no means do away with the evil. The nature of the errors would change, that is all. They would be such as arise from mishearing; and it is open to question whether they would not be quite as numerous and just as perplexing. Telegraphing is a species of dictation; and any one who had had experience of the way in which, under dictation of a subject totally incomprehensible to the writer, the most ludicrous mistakes will be made, will not be surprised at the curious freaks the telegraph sometimes indulges in. The only mode in which its Puck-like mischief-making powers can ever be curbed is by the introduction of a universal system of transmitting the identical writing of the senders of telegrams. The only blunders that we then should have to complain of would be our own; and to our own faults we are all inclined to be chari

1

table. But such a consummation is probably chimerical, or only destined for our posterity. There is, indeed, in existence an instrument for sending the original writing by telegraph, but it can at present be regarded only as a scientific toy.

So long as our confessedly imperfect system remains, errors must be expected: but as errors will be numerous in proportion as the sources from which they arise are numerous, anything which tends to diminish those sources must be welcome; and a few suggestions, with respect to the mode of framing telegraphic messages, so that they may not offer unnecessary traps for the unwary operator, will no doubt be acceptable as contributing to this result.

And here we must first combat a popular delusion. It is commonly supposed that brevity is the essence of a telegram, and that the shorter a message can be the better that if you have a thing to say in ten words, it is better to say it in seven; if you have a thing to say in seven, it is better to say it in five. This appears to be the creed of the general telegram-sender. No doubt, if his sole object be to swell the revenues of the State, his procedure is laudable: but there are other considerations to be taken into accourt; and if he wishes his telegrams to be rendered in such guise that they shall be understood par qui de droit, he will strive rather to make the wording plain than laconic. Redundancy is of course to be avoided, but too great brevity is equally to be eschewed. Laconic writing, it is to be borne in mind, tends to obscurity; obscurity makes it impossible for the telegraph operator to know when he is sending sense and when nonsense; and if he has no guide as to what he is sending, the chances are at least equal that he will go astray.

There is, no doubt, another motive which weighs with some, and that is the desire that the message should not be intelligible to the officials through whose hands it will pass. But it is short-sighted policy to make the wording obscure, in order to frustrate hypothetic official curiosity. If secrecy is important, it would be better to use a cipher. In the majority of cases, however, the true plan is to take the officials into your confi

46

46

dence, and write your message in such guise that he who runs may read. As an illustration of the ingenuity with which people will express themselves, as if for the very purpose of defeating their own object, we may cite the following: A lady, some short time since, telegraphed," Send them both thanks, by which she meant, Thank you; send them both❞—(the both" referred to two servants). The telegram reached its destination as Send them both back," thus making sense as the official mind would understand it, but a complete perversion of the meaning of the writer. Nothing was gained by putting it in this way; the cost of the message would have been just the same if put differently; and as the telegraph ignores stops, the message as it stood read like nonsense. It happens that "th" is not unlike "b" in the Morse alphabet; and this, coupled with the fact that "back" seemed to be required as the last word, fully explains the error.

But affectionate redundancy may also offer traps to the unwary. The following telegram was once sent: "Thankful to say little girl born safely; dear mother very nicely, having had a short and easy time." By the substitution of one single letter for another the whole sense was changed.

This was how it reached its destination : "Thankful to say little girl born safely dead, mother very nicely," etc. If the reader will imagine that sentence being spelt out to him, he will see that having received the words, "Little girl born safely, dea-," no other letter than "d" could present itself to his mind; and so it was with the telegraph operator, who was so fully possessed with the idea of dead" that he paid no heed to the final signals.

66

We may roughly classify the different kinds of errors perpetrated by the telegraph into: 1st, Errors which are due to pure guessing-sheer carelessness, we may call it-against which nothing is proof. 2d, Errors closely akin to the first, but in which the first letter or two are common to both words. These can often be obviated by careful wording. In the instance quoted above, if the clearly superfluous "dear" had been eliminated, a mistake, which made the message read like a grim joke, would not have been committed. 3d, There