or generalized nature of Limulus. While we have in another place endeavored to show in the light of A. Milne-Edwards' anatomical studies on Limulus, that it is an abnormal Crustacean and far removed from the Branchiopoda; there are nevertheless some points in which it comes in contact with the Phyllopoda, and which have been noticed ever since the time when O. F. Muller comprised Apus in his genus "Limulus." If the reader will compare the accompanying longitudinal section of Limulus with our section of Apus in Pl. xI, some striking resemblances will be seen; externally the front edge of the carapace, i. e., the frontal doublure, so well adapted for burrowing in the mud; the relations of the hypostoma or labrum, and the retention of the ocelli, as well as the mode of molting the shell, are external points of resem blance, while internally the front part of the head filled with the lobules of the liver, the oblique long narrow, oesophagus, the position of the stomach under the eye so far in front in the head, the simple archi-cerebrum, the general form of the heart, and the gnathobases near the mouth are additional points of resemblance.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XI.

FIG. 1.-Apus lucasanus Pack. Seen from beneath. Enlarged 31⁄2 times. d, mandibles.

66

66

66

66

66

66

66

66

2. Apus lucasanus Pack. First antennæ.

20.

-Apus lucasanus Pack. End of the same magnified. The antennæ of both pairs drawn to the same scale.

3.—Apus lucasanus Pack. Maxilla, showing the (a) anterior and (b) posterior divisions of the free edge; max, the gill of the maxillipede.

3a.-Apus lucasanus Pack. Maxillipede, represented by the gill only. 4.-Apus lucasanus Pack. First leg giving (with some changes) Lankester's nomenclature of the parts; ax1-ax', the pseudojoints; en1-en", the six endites, with the gill and flabellum.

5.-Apus lucasanus. The oostegite, or part of the 11th pair of legs of the female containing the eggs; os, aperture of the sack; A, modified flabellum; x, the greatly enlarged subapical lobe; br, the gill.

6.-Limnetis brachyura (Europe). ant1, Ist antennæ; ant3, 2d antennæ; lab, labrum; sh. g, shell gland; int, intestine; ht, heart; add, ms, adductor muscle; oc, ocellus; md, mandible; liv, liver.

7.-Limnetis brachyura. Section through the body and shell (sk); ht, heart: int, intestine; ov, ovary; 1-6, the six endites.

8.—Limnetis brachyura. Brain (br) and nervous cord; n. ant1, origin of the Ist antennal nerve; n. ant2, 2d antennal nerve; md. mandibular ganglion; mx. g, maxillary ganglion; G1, G', succeeding thoracic ganglia. Other letters as in Fig. 7.

9.—Distomum apodis Pack. AMER. Naturalist, Vol. XVI, p. 142, Feb., 1882. Side view, greatly enlarged. A parasite in oostegite of Apus lucasanus. 9 bis. The same, ventral view.

Fig. 1 drawn from nature by J. S. Kingsley; Figs. 6-8 copied from Grube; the others drawn with the camera by the author.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XII.

FIG. 1.-Apus lucasanus Pack. Section through the body, with the intestine removed, md, mandible; ant1, ant2, 1st and 2d antennæ; leg1, first pair of legs; br, flabellum; ov, ovary; ng, ganglionic chain.

2.-Transverse section through the body at the 7th or 8th pair of feet, the shell removed, mus, dorso-ventral adductors of the feet, crossed by the adductors of the exites; ht, heart; int, intestine; ov, ovary; n. g, ventral ganglion; en'-en, endites; br, gill; fl, flabellum; x, subapical lobe.

24.-1st antenna; 26, 2d antenna; 2, the extremity of 2d antenna, with four bead-like joints, showing the three imperfect joints, the third ending in a moniliform portion.

3.-Maxillipede with the gill (br) and single endite.

4, 4a.-Dorsal and lateral view of the brain of the European Apus cancriformis; br, brain; com, commissure to suboesophageal ganglion; g. op, optic ganglion; oc, ocellus; as, œsophagus.

5.-Brain and part of ventral cord of Apus cancriformis; oc, nerve to ocelli; ant', ant2, first and second antennal nerves; G1, esophageal; G', mandibular ganglion, sending off three mandibular nerves (n md); d, descending cesophageal nerve; h, unpaired or lower esophageal ganglion; as, nerve passing to the muscles of the oesophagus.

6.-Heart of Apus cancriformis.

7.-Apus longicaudatus, portion of embryonic membrane lying next to the chorion, and supposed to represent the amnion in Limulus; the nuclei in many of the cells have become absorbed.

"8.-An egg of the same, showing the cellular nature of the amnion.

44

8a.-A portion of the same amnion seen sideways of the egg.

Fig. I drawn under the author's direction by J. S. Kingsley; Figs. 4, 47. 5 and 6 copied from Zaddach; the remainder drawn with the camera by the author.

-:0:

IDOLS AND IDOL WORSHIP OF THE DELAWARE

INDIANS.

BY CHARLES C. ABBOTT.

JOHN Brainerd, while a missionary among the Indians of New

*

* *

*

Jersey, recorded of one of these people, that "she had an aunt who kept an idol image, which, indeed partly belonged to her, and that she had a mind to go and fetch her aunt and the image, that it might be burnt; but when she went to the place she found nobody at home, and the image also was taken away." While this, indeed, is slender evidence of the occurrence of idol worship among the Delaware Indians, it is of interest in showing that images were not unknown, and that they possessed other significance and value than as mere ornaments. Any carving in wood or stone, merely used for personal decoration would not have become sinful in the mind of an Indian woman, through the preaching of the missionary; and a desire to destroy the object she reported as in her possession, must necessarily have

arisen from the fact that it was regarded with superstitious reverence and invested with supernatural powers, in their belief.

Such "idols," however, unless usually made of material as perishable as wood, were of rare occurrence, if we may judge by the common experience of those who have been enthusiastic collectors of the ordinary stone implements of these people. Rude representations of the human face, it is true, have been quite frequently found; but the character of all these carvings is such as to suggest simply that they were intended merely as personal ornaments, and possessed no religious significance.

A recent discovery in New Jersey opens up the subject of the occurrence of "idols" among the Delaware Indians, and also furnishes another instance of the close relationship of the Ohio mound-builders and the Atlantic coast tribes. It has long been known to archaeologists that elaborate carvings of the human head have been found, in mound regions, of such large size that their use as ornaments was impracticable, and their religious significance was therefore proportionately probable. Such a carving has been recently found in New Jersey, and is at present a unique specimen. For other reasons than this, however, it is of considerable interest. The brief but authentic history of this idol, if

we may so designate it, is this: It was found in clearing a previously uncultivated tract preparatory to building a dwelling house. The spot was covered with scrub pines, with an undergrowth of black huckleberry and, in the moister soil, of swamp blueberry. The drier soil, except some two inches of humus, was an exceedingly homogeneous yellow ferruginous sand; and the workman was impressed by the fact that his spade had struck a stone a few inches below the surface, as the spot was one so destitute of stone that the presence of one was deemed remarkable. His attention was also drawn to the fact that the stone seemed

to be "set fast." He therefore drove his spade down by the side of the stone, and then throwing his weight on the handle, by this means started the object, which "came up with a click." Thus was the head broken from its base; and most unfortunately, no effort was made at the time to recover the missing portion. Many efforts have since been made, but as yet without success.

These particulars are of interest from one important fact. It is evident that the relic as obtained is only a small portion of a large object, the character of which can only be surmised. That the portion remaining in the ground is quite large, is shown by the resistance it offered to the considerable force exerted to displace it, and which resulted in the fracture of the specimen. This evidence of the considerable dimensions of the entire object is of interest archæologically, from the fact that the greater the size of any such carving the equally greater probability that the object possessed a religious significance in the estimation of its aboriginal owner.

It is not improbable that the missing portion of this interesting relic is simply a square base without any work having been put upon it other than polishing. This is inferred from the fact that essentially similar, but even more artistic carvings have been found in Western New York and in Ohio, having only such plain square bases. In ths thirteenth report of the regents of the University of the State of New York, there is given a description, with illustrations of several carvings, which bear a marked resemblance to the New Jersey specimen. Some of them, indeed, evidence so great skill on the part of the sculptor, that doubts have been expressed as to their being the handiwork of the Indians. The finding of the New Jersey carving would seem to bear directly upon this question, for the skill shown in the production of the latter, is evidence that the more artistic New York examples of supposed aboriginal carving were not beyond the attainments of the Indian carver. It should be borne in mind also that the accuracy with which celts, axes and trinkets of various patterns were shaped from the hardest stones, is of itself sufficient to show that a faithful portrait in an easily worked material, was quite within their capabilities.

The "idol" so recently brought to light from barren New Jersey sands, possesses all those characteristics of feature and expression peculiar to the Indians of the Atlantic coast. The

material is a compact argillaceous substance of a pale, olivaceous color. It is, in fact, an indurated clay-stone, and no doubt a nodule from the underlying cretaceous plastic clay cliffs on the shore of Raritan bay, near Keyport, New Jersey. These nodules abound in the clays just mentioned. The specimen shows, at the point of fracture, that this nodule is of unusual hardness, and has a clean conchoidal fracture. The slight depressions on the forehead are due to weathering, and the general condition of the surface indicates a considerable degree of antiquity. This fact, again, is of interest, as it adds to the series of facts already gathered concerning the handiwork of our coast. tribes, which go to show that at the time of the Columbian discovery of the continent, the natives were not in as "advanced" a condition as they previously had been, and that the majority of the most artistic of their productions in stone, if indeed not all of them, were at that time veritable relics, and considered as such.

In the execution of the idol we have been considering, the artist has secured the peculiar Indian physiognomy, yet it has been from simple economy of labor given to certain salient points offered by the natural form of the nodule, the work being entirely limited to the front and upper part of the head. There is, strange to say, no labor given to the sides, the bunch-like prominences being left untouched, and the effect is produced of an irregularly winged aspect, somewhat Egyptian. This, of course, is purely accidental, and may be classed as one of those treacherous resemblances which have led to so much vain speculation as to the ethnic relationship of American and Egyptian civilizations.

The height of this fragmentary carving is five and one-half inches; the breadth, four and one-eighth. Curiously enough, these measurements are identical with those of two similar carvings found in Ohio, and nearly coincide with the measurements given of the specimens found in Western New York, to which reference has been made. Can, indeed, this uniformity of size be merely accidental? Does it not rather indicate that these similar objects, whether in the possession of mound-builders or coast tribes, had a like significance, and was it not in all probability religious in its character?

I am indebted to Professor Samuel Lockwood, of Freehold, New Jersey, for much of the information concerning the interesting object here described, and the details of its discovery. The specimen is in his cabinet.