(Bombay, 1849). We have seen that the dialect of the Turkish Gipsies has remained unchanged for near five centuries, and the Jats are said to “preserve their vernacular tongue wherever they go.” SilppOsing Gipsies then to have broken off from the main Jat stem so late as the eleventh, or even as early as the fifth century a.d.)., we should look for a striking resemblance between Jazitaki and Iloinani. Compare, however. with the foregoing paradigms the following from Burton's grammar:—SISG. nom. ghorii, “a horse;" gen. ghorc-du'; (lat. ghorc-nzin; ace. ghorrt; abl. ghorc-te or Jon, “from a horse;” PLL'IL nom. ghorc; gen. ghoridn or ghorcn- dd; dat. ghoridn min, &c. The Jataki third personal pronoun, again, rllnS:—SING. nom. uha, “he;” gen. usaitu'; dat. and aee. usmin; abl. uste; PLUn. nom. uhe; gen. uhindci, &e.: its verbal formation is almost equally unlike the Romani. In the face of the great unlikeness of Itomani and Jiitaki one may well concur with Bataillard in the rejection of this theory, and proceed to consider the later views of that writer as advancedain Les Origines des Tsiganes (Par. , 1875), Les Tsigancs de l’xlge ([16 Bronze (Pan, 1876), and E‘tat de la quest-ion de l’ancienncté des Tsigancs en Europe (Par. , 1877). He now believes the Gipsics to have existed in Europe from immeniorial times,—a conclusion to which he is led by the absence of any record of their passage across the Bos- phorus, by their enslaved condition in \Vallaehia in the 14th century, by the casual notices cited above of their presence at a still earlier date, and by their present monopoly of metallurgical arts in South-Eastern Europe. These mainly negative proofs lose some of their force when we remark that neither is any record known to exist of the passage of Gipsies to England, Scotland, or America; and that at Corfu in 1346 (i.e., in historic times) we read of Gipsies being reduced to vassalage. Assuredly it is a mighty leap from the Athingani of the 9th century a.d. to the Sigynna: of Herodotus (v. 9), whom Bataillard claims for the ancestors of the Gipsy race. The strength, however, of the theory lies less in attempted identifications than in its explanation of the unsolved problem, What was the race that carried bronze to Northern and Western Europe ? Referring for a general survey of the question to the article .lncuazowov, to E. Chantrc’s {/e (le Bronze (4 vols., Paris, 1877), and to Lubbock’s Prehistoric Times (2d ed., London, 1869), we extract from the last-named work the following pas- sages:—“The absence of implements made either of copper or tin seems to indicate that the art of making bronze was introduced into Europe, [a view confirmed by the fact that] wherever we find the bronze swords or celts they are the same, not similar in char- acter, but identical. . . . The discovery of moulds proves that the art of casting in bronze was known and practised in many countries. Hence it appears most probable that the knowledge of metal is one of those great discoveries which Europe owes to the East. . . . The implements of bronze appear to have belonged to a race with smaller hands than those of the present European nation. . . . As regards the smallness of the hands, we must remember that Hindus share this peculiarity with Egyptians. . . . The Phoenicians were well acquainted with the use of iron. . . . We have still very much to learn in regard to the race by whom the knowledge of metal was introduced into our continent.” Each passage suggests or is explained by the supposition that this was no other than the small-handed and eastern Gipsy race. The Calderari work exclu- sively in copper, never in iron; no Gipsy bronze-smith would have spoilt his trade by introducing iron. Traces might perhaps yet be found in Norway of the workings of a band of Calderari, who visited that country in 1874; and certainly the utensils they wrought in France were exactly similar to those that they wrought in Norway. Bataillard's theory is strengthened by the fact that so high an authority as M. de Mortillet—who is followed by Chantre and Bur- nouf—had been independently led to a like conclusion in 1874. Its strongest confirmation, hOWever, is the important discovery of Dr Kopernicki that in Eastern Galicia there survive to the present day certain Zlotars (Ruth. “ goldsmiths”), Gipsy workers in bronze, whose processes Bataillard minutely describes in Les Zlotars (Paris, 1878). Difficulties there are in accepting the theory:—the unsettled question of the antiquity of the Romani tongue; the yawning chasm of a thousand years; above all, the unnotiCed fact that nearly all the metallurgical terms of Itomani seem to be borrowed from Greek— l'altii, “tin” (xaAaiov); Muir/com, “copper” (xciAKwya); moliv, "lead" (noAz’JBioy); [ca/chart, “ kettle” (naanBn); amzmt, “anvil” (deem); rin, "tile" (pad); sivri, “hammer” (mpupt); hsihiri, “ pincers” (euAdBioy) ; [car/in, “nail” (xap¢l); kiidi, “key” mAufir’); grzmptina, “bell” (eunuch/a); and petalo, “horseshoe” (ne’raAoy). This looks like an insuperable objection, since certainly no Calderari of to-day would borrow from French or German the names for these the most familiar objects of his long-practised calling; and unless Bataillard be prepared to maintain that Greek took the terms from Romani, not rice rersa, his theory falls. Bibliography. —The literature on the Gipsies is richer in appear- ance thanin reality. Miklosich( i. 54—59)and Bataillard(Lesdernicrs Travaua: relatijs aux Bohémiens, Paris, 1872) give the titles of 118 works, a number which might be largely increased. Ilut many of these “ works ” are articles hidden away in periodicals, as “ The English Gipsies," by the Rev. S. James, in The Church of Eng- I'm/l .llagazine, 1875 ; many are mere rcchalgt'és of earlier publi- cations. Imperfect though it be, Grellmann’s 11istorisehcr l'ersuch fiber die Zigeuner (1783; 2d and enlarged ed., Goth, 1787; ling. translation by M. Ilaper, 1787) remains the only attempt at a full history of thc Gipsy race; its grave deficiencies are best supplied by Sprengler's Dissertatio h istoricw—j u rid ica dc (ling/unis sire Z igcun is Leydcn, 1839), by Ilopf's Einzl'muterung (ler Zigeuner in Jz'uropu (Gotha, 1870), by the historical portions of Miklosieh’s work, and above all by Bataillard’s De l’xquiarition et- de la .lh'spersion (Its L‘uhe'nziens en Europe (Paris,1844),.\'0urcllcs Recherchcs (l'aris,1849), and L'tatde Ia Question, &e. (Paris, 1877). On the language viewed as a whole the chief authorities are—Die Z igcuncr in Jim-01m. and Asicn (2 vols., Halle, 1844—45), by A. l“. l‘ott ; Zigcmierisehes(Ilalle, 1865), by G. II. Ascoli; and Ueber die .llundartcn zuut (lie H'unilrr- ‘imgen (ler Zigeuner Europa’s (8 parts, Vienna, 1872—78), and Beitriige :ur Kenntniss dcr Zigeunermundartcn (4 parts, Vienna, 1874—78), by 1". von hlililOsich. From works on the Gipsies of ditl'e- rent European lands the following may be given as a Selection (the more important being marked with an asterisk) :—for Turkey, Etudcs sm' les Tchinghianés (Constan, 1870), by A. G. l'asl-ati; for Roumania, the unsatisfactory Grammaire, Dialogues, ct I 'ocabu- lztire de la Langue ties Cigains (Paris, 1868), byJ. A. Yaillant; for Hungary, A’ czigtiny eiyelv clemci (l’esth, 1853), by J. Borneniisza; for Bohemia, *Ronuini Crib (Prague, 1821), by A. J. l’in-lnuayer; for Germany, *Die Zigeuner in 'ihrem "'csen mul ihrer Sprache (Leipsic, 1863), by It. Licbieh; for Poland, It’ys historietny Imlzl cygdnskiego (“'ilna, 1830), by T. Narbutt; for llussia, l'itu‘r (lie S'prache (lcr Zigeuner in Russ-land (St Pct. 1853), by O. ll'ohtlingk; for Norway, Beret/ling am. Fante- cllcr Landstrygeifolhct i 1"01'5/1', (5 parts, Christian, 1850—65), by E. Sundt; for Dcnmark, Tun re 0g Ahtma-ndsfiylk i Danmarh' (Copenh., 1872), by F. Dyrlund; for England, *The English G'ipsics and their Language (London, 1873). by C. G. Leland, Romano Lara-Lil .' fibril-book of the English Gipsy Language (1874), by G. Borrow, and *The Dialect. of the English Gips'ies (1875), by B. Smart and II. T. L'rofton; for Scot- land, A History (f the G'ipsics (London, 1865'), by \V. Simson; for Italy, Zigcmierisehcs (llallc, 1865), by Ascoli; for the Basque (‘ountry, Vocabulaire de la Langue (lrs L’ohc‘miens habitunt [rs I’ays Basques Frangais (Bord. 1862); for Spain, The Zinmti (‘2 vols., I.ond., 1841; new cd. 1873), by Borrow. From works on non-European Gipsies selection is unnecessary, since their sum total is as follows :—“ Ucber die Sprache dcr Zigeuner in Syrien,” by I‘ott, in Zeitsehri/Z fiir die IVissensehaft dn' Sprache (llcrlin, 1846); Boise-n (lurch .S'yricn, I’aliistina, &e. (Berlin, 1854), by l'. J. Seetzen, containing a Syro-Romani vocabulary; * “ The Gipsics of Egypt,” in the Journ. of the Roy. As-iatie Soc. (Lond., 1856), by Captain Newbold, comprehending vocabularies from Egypt, Syria, and Persia ; “ Die Zigeuner in digyptcn,” in J'ctrrmunn's .11 ittheilungcn (Gotha, 1862), by A. von Iircmer ; Notes ct Questions sur les Bohe’micns cn Algerie (Paris, 1874), by I’. I-lataillard; and Travels in the East- (Lond., 1823), by Sir \V. OuSeley, vol. iii. of which gives a Karachi vocabulary. To these may be added the specimens of the Gipsy dialects of Asia Minor, furnished by l‘aspati, and vocabularies from Armenia and Siberia in Miklosich's Beitra'gr (iv. pp. 38—41).
to the ruminant group of the Artiodactyle Ungulates, and the single living representative of the family Canada/writa- lithe. Intermediate between the members of the deer and ox families, the giraffe differs from both in having neither true horns nor antlers. It possesses however two solid, bony, and persistent appendages, attached partly to the frontal and partly to the parietal bones; and not to the former only as in the true horned ruminants, and these, 1111- like the processes of the latter, are distinct bones, separable, at least in the young animal, from those of the forehead. These horn-like pcduneles are completely covered over by the skin of the forehead, and are terminated by a tuft of bristles, while in front of them there is a protuberance caused by a thickening of the bone, sufficiently prominent in the male to have been frequently described as a third born. The giraffe is the tallest of existing animals, mea— suring usually from 15 to 16 feet high—the females being somewhat less—but attaining in the largest examples a height of 18 feet. This exceptional elevation is chiefly due to its great- length of. neck and limb, the cervical vertebrae, although only seven in number as in other mammals, being in this case exceedingly long. Its body is proportionately short, measuring only 7 feet between the breast and rump,
and slants rapidly towards the tail—a peculiarity which has