The early common law had no theory of obligations in the Roman sense, and hardly any theory of contract. Its remedies were directed either to the restitution of something which the defendant unjustly detained from the plaintiff—were it land, goods, or money—or to the repression of violent wrongdoing. Only the former class of remedies was purely civil; the latter included a penal element of which formal traces remained long after the substance had vanished. A man who trespassed on his neighbour with force and arms offended the king as well as his neighbour, and was liable not only to pay damages to his neighbour but to make a fine to the king. Gradually the category of “force and arms” was held to include all manner of direct injuries to person, land, or goods, though the force might consist in nothing more than the bare setting foot without lawful cause on the soil possessed by one’s neighbour. But this was still a long way from making room for the modern growth of the law of torts. The decisive opening was given by the Statute of Westminster, which enabled actions to be framed “on the case ”— in consimili casu, — that is, allowed legal remedies to be extended by analogy to the forms of action already recognized. Now those forms and their incidents were archaic and inelastic: the procedure was cumbrous, and plaintiffs were liable in many ways to irrational and irreparable discomfiture. The more modern action on the case was free from these drawbacks. Hence it was the aim of ingenious pleaders to extend the action on the case as much as possible; and so successful was this movement that in the 16th century a special form of “trespass on the case” became, under the name of assumpsit, the common and normal method of enforcing contracts not made by deed, and remained so till the middle of the present century. It still holds its place in those American States where the old forms of action have not been abolished. Note that “assumpsit” had become a substantive title of the law, and was consciously referred to its proper genus of contract, before the genus or order of torts was formed. Meanwhile other actions on the case, framed mostly on the analogy of trespass, but partly on that of other generically similar remedies of the old law, were applied to the redress of miscellaneous injuries to person or property which for one and another reason could not be touched, or could not be conveniently dealt with, by the old action of trespass itself. Some of these actions on the case acquired fixed forms of their own and became distinct species; others did not; there remained (and there still remains in theory) an undefined region of possible new actions applying the principles of legal right and duty to new exigencies of fact.

The extension of forms of remedy grounded on trespass caused those forms which were grounded on restitution to fall into the background, with the curious result that in the modern common law nothing is left answering to the vindicatio of the Roman law. We have an elaborate law of property, but when it comes to the practical protection of our rights we find that we can recover our property only by complaining of a wrong done to our possession or right to possession. The law puts the actual possessor in the first line, and allows an owner definitely out of possession to sue only for “injury to the reversion,” though an owner who can resume possession at will is indeed more favourably treated. Its remedies are made efficient, but at the cost of straining the theory at various points. Hence many difficulties of detail and much obscurity of principle. The distinction between dominium and obligatio exists, of course, in English law, but it is peculiarly hard for an English lawyer, with the usual unsystematic training, to grasp it with certainty or trace it with accuracy.

There is also a region of considerable obscurity about the points of contact between contract and tort. The questions thus raised are too technical for discussion here. Since pleadings have ceased to be formal they are much less likely to arise; on the other hand, they are more likely, in the exceptional cases where they may still arise, to be unexpected and baffling.

For the practical purposes of modern law we may divide torts into three groups,—wrongs of a personal character, wrongs affecting property, and wrongs affecting person and property, either or both. Under the first group come the wrongs of physical violence and restraint, namely, assault and false imprisonment; then the wrong done to men’s good name by libel and slander, in which kind there are sundry curious and not wholly rational distinctions; and we must here rather than elsewhere count deceit, and a somewhat ill-defined class of wrongs of a like nature, of which the generic mark is the necessary presence of a fraudulent intention, or at least reckless disregard of good faith. In one case, that of malicious prosecution, evil motive must be shown; in fact, the much-tormented word “malice” has very nearly its natural and ordinary meaning. So-called slander of title belongs to this class, being in truth a special form of deceit. Wilful interference with the exercise of public or private rights may be an actionable wrong, though the competitive exercise of like rights is none; and it is held, though not without doubt, that procuring a person to break his contract for one’s own advantage (for example, a singer engaged by a rival opera manager, or a specially skilled workman in a rival factory) is on this principle a wrong to the other contracting party.

With regard to property the broad rule of the common law is that a man meddles with whatever belongs to others at his peril. This has been established and worked out only through a series of intricate formal distinctions. But the result is that, special exceptions excepted, even the most innocent assumption of dominion without a real title makes one liable to the true owner.

Wrongs of the mixed kind affecting both person and property arise from the use of one’s own property, or the doing of acts lawful in themselves, in a manner inconsistent with the safety and convenience of others. The accustomed heads of such wrongs are nuisance and negligence. Generally some failure in due diligence is involved; but in some cases the law has, on grounds of general policy, imposed an absolute or all but absolute duty of avoiding harmful results. One must do certain things at one’s peril, if at all, though the doing of them is not in itself unlawful; others are done not at one’s peril, and yet under a wider responsibility than the common run of lawful acts. It is not wrong to make an artificial reservoir of water on one’s own land; but the landowner who does so must answer for all damage, though no failure in due diligence be shown, if the water escapes by any cause which reasonable human care could possibly have provided against. Again, the occupier of a place of business must keep it in safe repair, for the benefit of customers and others lawfully coming there; and, if harm is done through the want of repair, it is no excuse for him to say that he had engaged an apparently competent person to keep things in order. These are modern principles in the law, and seem to have hardly yet reached their full development. The doctrine of negligence is also mostly modern. Questions of much interest and difficulty are raised by “contributory negligence,” i.e., when it is alleged by way of defence that the party complaining suffered wholly or mainly by his own want of care. The true principle appears to be that, if under the circumstances the harm suffered by the plaintiff was the natural and probable consequence of the defendant’s want of care, the defendant is liable,—and this whether the plaintiff, or some third person, has or has not in any degree contributed to the final result by want of care on his own part, or even by a voluntary act, provided that the act be such as might have been foreseen and expected. But if the plaintiff has done something which, though induced by the defendant’s default, was not a natural and probable consequence of it, or if the harm suffered is due to some act of a third person which could not have been reasonably foreseen or expected, then the defendant will not be liable.

A great number of special duties have been imposed on different classes of persons—public officers, undertakers of public occupations, and so forth—by modem Acts of Parliament, and are enforcable by penalties. In some cases the breach of such a duty confers a separate right of action upon a person who thereby suffers damage, in others not, according to what appears to be the intention of the enactment. No general rule can be laid down.

In practice, a large proportion of actionable injuries, especially injuries by negligence, are due to the acts or defaults of servants or workmen, from whom no substantial redress could be obtained or expected. It is held in the common law, and appears to be held in all modem systems, that a master is liable for the acts and defaults of the servants employed by him, provided those acts or defaults occur in the course of the servant's employment, that is, while the servant is about the master’s business, and acting with a view to the master’s interest, and not for some different private purpose of his own. But a man is not generally liable for the conduct of an “independent contractor”—a person who undertakes to do or get done certain work, but not to be under the employer’s control as to the manner of doing it. One may be so liable, however, in virtue of special duties attached to particular situations by positive rales of law. When a servant is injured by the act or default of another servant working under the same employer, the general rale of liability has been largely modified in the employer’s favour, on grounds which have neither been consistently expounded nor generally received as satisfactory. The Employers’ Liability Act of 1880 has remedied the most obvious hardships consequent on the decisions, but only by way of particular exceptions, so that the law as a whole, if more just than it was, is much more intricate, and does not appear to rest on any intelligible principle. The Scottish courts were in a way to develop a more rational doctrine, but the House of Lords, instead of adopting it, forced the law of Scotland into conformity with judgments which were still of only recent authority in England. The subject, however, has given trouble everywhere, and legislative experiments have been tried in many Continental countries. See Parliamentary Papers, Commercial, No. 21, 1886.

Literature.— There are several modem English and American text-hooks on the law of torts C. G. Addison, Wrongs and their Remedies, being a Treatise on the Law of Torts, Cth ed., by Horace Smith, London, 1887, la. 8vo; Μ. Μ. Bigelow, Leading Cases on the Law of Torts, Boston, Mass., 1875, la. 8vo; Id., Elements of the Law of Torts, 3d ed., Boston, Mass., 1886, sm. 8vo; C. Collett, Manual of the Law of Torts and of the Measure of Damages, 6th ed., Madras, 1886, 8vo; T. Μ. Cooley, A Treatise on the Law of Torts, Chicago, I860, 8vo; S. Hastings, A Treatise on Torts, London, 1885, la. 8vo; F. Hilliard, The Law of Torts or Ρrirate Wrongs, 4th ed., Boston, Mass., 1874, la. 8vo, 2 vols.; F. T. Piggott, Principles of the Law of Torts, London, 1885, 8vo; F. Pollock, The Law of Torts, London, 1887, 8vo; A. Underhill, A Summary of the Law of Torts, 3d ed., London, 188Ì, 8vo. There are also well-known works of a wider scope which touch on many parts of the subject, such as that of Mayne on Damages; and monographs on special parte, such as those on Negligence by Campbell, Horace Smith, Shearman and Redfield, and wharton, and those on Libel and Slander by Starkie (recent ed. by Folkard) and Blake odgers. The Government of India has taken steps to codify the law of civil wrongs (Whitley Stokes, The Anglo-Indian Codes). The general institutional books (Blackstone and Kent, and the later adaptations of Blackstone in England) are of little use, as in almost every branch the law has been largely developed and modified by the decisions of the last fifty years. (F. ΡΟ.)

Tortoises and turtles constitute one of the orders of Reptiles, the Chelonia. They are characterized by having the trunk of the body incased in a more or less ossified carapace, which consists of a dorsal more or less convex portion, and of a flat ventral one, the so-called plastron. These portions are generally more or less firmly united on the side, but leave a wide opening in front through which the head and neck and the fore-limbs protrude, and one behind for the tail and hind-limbs. The dorsal carapace is (with the exception of Sphargis) formed by the dorsal vertebrae, by the ribs which are so much expanded as to form sutures with each other, and by a number of lateral dermal ossifications (marginals). The plastron consists of from eight to eleven more or less dilated dermal bones, the sternal elements of higher Vertebrata being absent. This osseous case or shell receives in its interior the organs of the chest and abdomen, the humeral and pelvic bones, and the muscles for the humerus and femur. In many species, especially those of the family Testudinidae, or tortoises proper, the neck and head and the limbs can be withdrawn within the shell, the cervical and the proximal caudal vertebrae retaining their mobility. In the majority of Chelonians the osseous shell is covered with a hard epidermoid coat, which is divided into large symmetrical plates (commonly called “tortoise-shell” in those species from which the article of commerce is obtained), which can be detached from the underlying bones. These epidermoid plates do not correspond in arrangement or extent with the bones of the carapace; they vary considerably in form, and are therefore generally noticed in the descriptions of species. Their arrangement and terminology may be learned from the accompanying illustrations (figs. 1, 2).

The integuments of the head, neck, tail, and limbs are either soft and smooth or tubercular or scaly, the tubercles and scales having frequently an osseous nucleus.

Other parts also of the skeleton show remarkable peculiarities, so that the sometimes very fragmentary remains of Chelonians can almost always be recognized as such. All the bones of the skull are suturally united, with the exception of the mandible and hyoid bone; the dentary portion of the mandible consists of one bone only. The pectoral arch is composed of the scapula, with which the precoracoid is united, and the coracoid. Clavicles (epi-plastra) are represented by the anterior elements of the plastron. Two pairs of limbs are invariably present.

All Chelonians possess a tail, which is generally short, but sometimes elongate, and always provided with strong muscles at the base. No Chelonian possesses teeth; but their jaws are provided with horny sheaths, with hard, and sharp edges, forming a beak like that of a parrot.

The number of Chelonians known at present may be estimated at about 220, the freshwater species being far the most numerous, and abundant in well-watered districts of the tropical and subtropical zones. Their number and variety decrease beyond the tropics, and in the north they disappear entirely about the 50th parallel in the western and about the 56th in the eastern hemisphere, whilst in the southern hemisphere the terrestrial forms seem to advance to 36 β S. lat. only. The marine turtles, which are spread over the whole of the equatorial and subtropical seas, sometimes stray beyond those limits. As in other orders of Reptiles, the most specialized and the largest forms are restricted to the tropics (with the exception of Macroclemmys); but, unlike lizards or snakes, Chelonians Figs. 1. 2.—Shell of Testudo pardalis to show the divisions of the integument, which are marked by entire lines, and of the osseous carapace, these being marked by dotted lines. Fig. 1, Upper or dorsal aspect. Fig. 2, Lower or ventral aspect.

Dermal Scutes:— eο, costals; v, vertebrals; m, marginals; g, gulars; pg, post-gulars; p, pectorals; ab, abdominals; pa, praeanals; an, anais.

Bones of the Carapace :— co', costals; ne, nenrals; nu, nuchal; py, pygal; m ’ , marginals; ent, entoplastron, ep, epiplastron; hyo, hyoplastron; hyp, hypoplastron; xyp, xyphiplastron.

are unable to exist in sterile districts or at great altitudes. Chelonians are strictly animals of plains, or at least of low country.

Chelonians show a great divergence in their mode of life,—some living constantly on land, others having partly terrestrial partly aquatic habits, others again rarely leaving the water or the sea. The first-mentioned, the land tortoises proper, have short club-shaped feet with blunt claws, and a very convex, heavy, completely ossified shell. In the freshwater forms the joints of the limb bones are much more mobile, the digits distinct, armed with sharp claws, and united by a membrane or web; their shell is less convex, and is flattened, and more or less extensive areas may remain cartilaginous to lessen its specific gravity. As a rule, the degree of development of the interdigital web and of convexity of the shell indicates the prevalence of aquatic or terrestrial habits of a species of terrapin. Finally, the marine turtles have paddle-shaped limbs resembling those of Cetaceans.

Land tortoises are sufficiently protected by their carapace, and therefore have no need of any special modification of structure by means of which their appearance would be assimilated to the surroundings, and thus give them additional security from their enemies. These, however, are but few in number: the large cats of South America are said to be able to tear them out of the shell with their claws; and the ancient tale of Aeschylus having been killed by a tortoise carried aloft by an eagle and dropped on the head of the unfortunate poet seems to be founded on the fact that tortoises are a favourite prey of the Lämmergeyer (Cypaetus), which has the habit of dropping them from a height on rocks in order to break the shell. On the other hand, among the carnivorous terrapins and freshwater turtles instances of protective resemblance are not scarce, and may even attain to a high degree of specialization, as in Chelys ; their shells offer them less protection, and their enemies (crocodiles and alligators) are more numerous; they also require this special provision to enable them to approach or seize their prey with greater ease. The colours of land tortoises are generally plain or in simple patterns, whilst those of many terrapins are singularly varied, bright, and beautiful.

Chelonians are diurnal animals; only a few are active during the night, habitually or on special occasions, as, for instance, during oviposition. Land tortoises are slow in all their movements, but all kinds living in water can execute extremely rapid motions, either to seize their prey or to escape from danger. All Chelonians are stationary, residing throughout the year in the same locality, with the exception of the marine turtles, which periodically migrate to their breeding-stations. Species inhabiting temperate regions hibernate.

Chelonians possess great tenacity oflife, surviving injuries to which other Reptiles would succumb in a short time. The heart of a decapitated tortoise continues to beat for many hours after every drop of blood has been drained from the body, and the muscles of the trunk and head show signs of reflex action twenty-four hours after the severance of the spinal cord. The longevity of tortoises is likewise a well-known fact, to which reference will again be made.

Land tortoises, a few terrapins, and some of the marine turtles are herbivorous, the others carnivorous, their prey consisting chiefly of fish, frogs, and other small aquatic animals.

All Chelonians are oviparous, and the eggs are generally covered with a hard shell.

In the system proposed by Duméril and Bibron, and afterwards modified by Gray and Strauch, the Chelonians are arranged according to their mode of life, and divided into terrestrial, paludine, fluviatile, and marine forms. However natural such an arrangement may appear at first, a more careful examination proves it to be (as all arrangements based solely upon the mode of life) at variance with the structural affinities, whether the recent forms alone be considered or the fossil as well. The division of the bulk of the order into Cτyptodira and Pleurodira, as suggested by Agassiz, Cope, and Rütimeyer, was a decided progress, as is also the elimination of the suborders Atheca and Tτionychoidea recently proposed by Cope and Baur.

The order of Chelonians may then be divided into the following suborders and families: —

Suborder I. ATHECAe.

Vertebras and ribs free, separated from a bony exoskeleton. Family 1. Sphargidae.

Limbs paddle-shaped, clawless; phalanges without condyles. Plastron reduced to an annular series of eight small bones. Exoskeleton consisting of numerous small bony plates arranged likö mosaic. Pelagic.

Genus: Dermαtοchelys (Sphargis).

Fossil genera: Psephοphοrus (Pliocene), Protosphargis (Cretaceous), Protostega (Cretaceous), Psephoderma ? (Triassic).

Suborder II. TESTUDINATA.

Dorsal vertebrae and ribs immovably united and expanded into bony plates forming a carapace, which is bordered by a complete series of marginal bones. Epiplastra (clavicles) in contact with hyoplastra; entoplastron (interclavicle), if present, oval, rhomboidal, or T-shaped. Sacral and caudal ribs articulating with the centrum and the neural arch. Digits with not more than three phalanges.

Series A. CRYPTODIRA.

Neck retractile by a sigmoid curve in a vertical plane. Pelvis not anchylosed to the carapace and plastron. Rarely one or two epidermic scutes (intergular) in addition to the normal six pairs.

Group A. Digitata.

Digits short or moderately elongate; phalanges with condyles; claws four or five. Neck completely retractile.

Family 1. Testudinidae.

Plastral bones nine. Nuchal bone without costiform processes. Carapace with epidermic scutes. Caudal vertebrae procoelous. Tropical and temperate zones, with the exception of Australia.

Recent genera: Dermatemys, Batagιιr, Clemmys, Pangslιura, Geoemyda, Cycle-mys, Emys, Cisludo, Manouria, Testudo, IIomopus, Cinyxis, Pyxis.

Fossil genera: Euryslernum (Jurassic), Chilracephalus (Cretaceous), A<locus (Cretaceous), Palxochelys (Miocene), Plychog<ρster (Miocene), Colossochelys (Pliocene).

Family 2. Platysternidae.

Plastral bones nine. Nuchal bone without costiform processes. Carapace with epidermic scutes. Caudal vertebrae mostly opistho-caelous. Indian region.

Genus: Platysternym.

Family 3. Baenidae.

Plastral bones eleven, mesoplastτa being present. Nuchal bone without costiform processes. Carapace with epidermic scutes. Caudal vertebrae opisthocaelous.

Fossil genera: Platychelys (Jurassic); Baena (Eoeene).

Family 4. Chelydridae.

Plastral bones nine. Nuchal bone with long costiform processes, extending below the marginals. Carapace with epidermic scutes. Caudal vertebrae mostly opisthocaelous. Northern and tropical American regions.

Recent genera: Chelydra, Macroclemmys.

Fossil genus: Trelosternum (Cretaceous).

Family 5. Staurotypidae (Boulenger).

Plastral bones nine. Nuchal bone with short costiform processes, extending below the marginals. Carapace with epidermic scutes. Caudal vertebrae procoelous. Central-American district.

Genera: Staurotypus, Claudius.

Family 6. Cinosternidae.

Plastral bones eight, the entoplastron being absent. Nuchal bone with short costiform processes, extending below the marginals. Carapace with epidermic scutes. Caudal vertebrae procoelous. Northern and tropical American regions.

Gepera: Aromochelys, Cinoslemunt.

Family 7. Pseudotrionychidae (Boulenger).

Shell without epidermic scutes.

Fossil genera: Pseudotrionyx and Anosiira (Eocene), Group B. Pinnata.

Limbs paddle-shaped; phalanges without condyles; claws one or two. Neck imperfectly retractile; cervical vertebrae short, mostly articulated by amphiarthrosis.

Family 8. Chelonidae.

Plastral bones nine. Nuchal without costiform processes. Carapace with epidermic scuteS. Hyo-and hypo-plastra not meeting mesially. Pelagic.

Recent genera: Chelone, Caouana, Caretta.

Fossil genus: Puppigerus (Miocene and Eocene)

Series B. PLEURODIRA.

Neck not retractile, bending laterally. Pelvis anchylosed to the carapace and plastron. When epidermic scutes are present, one or two intergulars in addition to the normal plastral scutes.

Family 1. Chelydidae.

Plastral bones nine. Carapace with epidermic scutes. Limbs with four or five claws. Australian and tropical American regions.

Recent genera; Plalemys, Chelymys, Elsey a, Chelodina, Hy dr aspis, Hydromedusa, Chelys.

Fossil genera: Plesioclιelys (Jurassic), Craspedochelys (Jurassic), Idiochelys (Jurassic), Nolomorpìta (Eocene).

Family 2. Pelomedusidae.

Plastral bones eleven, mesoplastιa being present. Carapace with epidermic scutes. Limbs with four or five claws. African and tropical American regions.

Recent genera: Pelomedusa, Stemolhxrus, Dumerilia, Podocnemis, Pelto-cep∕ιalus.

Fossil genera: Pletιrostemum (Cretaceous, Eocene), Bothremys (Cretaceous), Taphrosphys (Cretaceous).

Family 3. Carettochelydidae.

Plastral bones nine. No epidermic scutes on the shell. Limbs paddle-shaped, with only two claws. New Guinea.

Genus: Careltochelys.

Family 4. Miolaniidae (Boulenger).

Caudal vertebrae opisthocaelous; tail long and encased in a bony sheath. Australia.

Fossil genus: Miolania (Pleistocene).

Suborder III. TRIONYCHOIDEA.

Dorsal vertebrae and ribs immovably united, forming a carapace; no pygal plate; marginal plates absent or forming an incomplete series. Plastron formed of nine bones, epiplastra separated from the hyoplastra by the entoplastron, which is /(-shaped, without longitudinal process. Sacral and caudal ribs attached to transverse processes of the neural arch. Fourth digit with four or five phalanges.

Family 1. Trionychidae.

No epidermic scutes. Limbs with three claws. Indian, African, and American regions.

Genera: Chilra, Heplathyra, Trionyx, Cyclanosteus, Emyda.

We add a few notes on such of the genera enumerated in this synopsis as have some special interest attached to them, either from a scientific or an economic point of view.

The family Sphargidae is represented in the recent fauna by a single species, Dermatochelys or Sphargis coriacea, the Leathery Turtle, the range of which extends over the tropical and subtropical seas of both hemispheres, and which occasionally strays into the northern parts of the Atlantic, its occurrence on the British coast having been recorded three or four times within the last century. It differs from all other Chelonians by its carapace being formed by ossifications of the skin only. Neither the vertebrae nor the ribs enter into its formation; the latter remain free, and are not particularly dilated. During the life of the animal the carapace is flexible like thick leather, the bony deposits being arranged like mosaic, with several longitudinal ridges of larger osseous tubercles. The limbs are, as in other marine turtles, paddle-or fin-shaped, the anterior much longer than the posterior, and all destitute of claws. This turtle is probably the largest living Chelonian, exceeding 6 feet in length. The names Testudo lyra, Sphargis mereurialis, &c., have reference to the myth that the shell of this or some other turtle was used by Mercury in his construction of the lyre.

The family Testudinidae is composed of an unbroken series, from thoroughly aquatic freshwater tortoises like Dermatemys and Balagur to the tortoises which live exclusively on land and are perfectly helpless in water. In the Central-American genus Dermatemys the digits are very broadly webbed, the epidermic scutes are thin, and the nose is much produced,—characters which, together with the strong depression of the shell, give these terrapins somewhat the aspect of the freshwater turtles or Trionychidae. They feed exclusively upon leaves, grass, and especially fruit, and are eaten by the natives. Of the freshwater tortoises of the Old World the most thoroughly aquatic are the Batagurs, which inhabit the East Indies, and attain to a length of 2 feet. Like their American representative, Dermatemys, they are essentially herbivorous, and their flesh is eaten. The genus Clemmys is extremely abundant in species, most of which are of small size, and elegantly ornamented with symmetrical markings of bright colour. The majority of the species occur in North America and Mexico, and are of amphibious habits. Only one species, C. leprosa, inhabits southern Europe. A second European species belongs to the genus Emys, E. orbicularis, which, towards the end of the Quaternary period appears to have been distributed over a great part of northern Europe, remains having been found in peat in England, Belgium, Denmark, and Sweden. Its habitat is now restricted to southern Europe, south-western Asia, and north-western Africa; but singularly it has survived in a few isolated northern stations, for instance, in the neighbourhood of Berlin and Königsberg, although it is there on the verge of extinction. The mobility of the lobes of the plastron, which distinguishes Emys from Clemmys, is carried a degree further in the North-American genus Cistudo, the Box Tortoise; this terrapin possesses a hinge in the plastron, rendering its anterior and posterior portions movable, and converting them into lids by which the openings of the shell can be completely closed when the head and limbs are retracted. A similar protective apparatus exists in the tortoises of the genus Cinostermιm. In the African terrestrial genus Cinyxis it is the posterior portion of the carapace that is movable, and separated from the anterior by a hinge. True land tortoises, Testudo, occur in Africa, southern Europe, southern Asia, South America, and the southern parts of North America. Those best known in Europe are Testudo graeca and the Moorish Tortoise, Testudo mauritanien, large numbers of which are imported into the United Kingdom, chiefly from Morocco. But the most interesting are the gigantic tortoises which formerly inhabited in extreme abundance the Mascarene and Galapagos Islands, and are now on the verge of extinction, or have actually become extinct. At the time of their discovery those islands were uninhabited by man or any large mammal; the tortoises, therefore, enjoyed perfect security; and this, as well as their extraordinary degree of longevity, accounts for their enormous size and their large numbers. They could be captured in any quantity with the greatest ease within a few days, and proved to the ships’ companies who during their long voyages had to subsist mainly on salt provisions a most welcome addition to their table. They could be carried in the hold of a ship, without food, for months, and were slaughtered as occasion required, each tortoise yielding, according to size, from 80 to 300 pounds of excellent and wholesome meat. Under these circumstances the numbers of these helpless creatures decreased so rapidly that in the beginning of this century their extermination was accomplished in the Mascarenes, and now only a few remain in a wild state in Aldabra and in some of the islands of the Galapagos group. Singularly, the majority of these islands were inhabited each by one or more peculiar forms, specifically distinct from those of the other islands. A large male specimen from Aldabra, which was imported into London some years ago, weighed

870 lb, and, although known to have been more than eighty years old, was still growing at the time of its death. There is no evidence to show that any of these tortoises were indigenous in the Seychelles; the specimens kept there in a semi-domesticated state have been either directly imported from Aldabra or are the descendants of imported individuals.

The family of Chelydridae includes freshwater tortoises, which are known under the names of Snappers or Alligator Terrapins (fig. 3), on account of their ferocity and long compressed crested tail. They are now confined to North America east of the Rocky Mountains, Central America, and northwest South America, but remains of two species of Chelydra, closely related to their recent representative, have been found in the Oligocène and Miocene of central Europe. A second genus, closely allied to Chelydra, Macroclemmys temminckii, the shell of which attains to a length of 3 feet, and which is the largest known freshwater Chelonian, is restricted to the river-systems tributary to the Gulf of Mexico.

The family of Cinosternidae contains a rather large number of small-sized species, distributed from the northern parts of the United States to the northern parts of Brazil. They are of amphibious habits. The front and hind lobes of the plastron are movable, and in certain species of Cinoslernum the animal can completely shut itself up in its shell.

The Chelonidae, or marine turtles, contain but few species, which are referred to three genera,— Caouaηa, Chelone, and Carella. Their limbs are wholly modified into paddles, by means of which they can propel themselves with extraordinary rapidity through the water, but which are entirely unfit for locomotion on land, where the progress of these animals is as awkward as that of a seal. The toes are enclosed in a common skin, out of which only one or two claws project. The carapace is broad and much depressed, so that when the turtles are surprised on shore and turned over on their back, they cannot regain their natural position. Their capture forms a regular pursuit wherever they occur in any numbers. Comparatively few are caught in the open sea, others in stake nets, but the majority are intercepted at well-known periods and localities where they go ashore to deposit their eggs. These are very numerous, from 100 to 250 being produced by one female, and buried by her in the sand; they are eagerly searched for and eaten. Some of the marine turtles are highly esteemed for the delicacy of...

Tortoiseshell is worked precisely as horn; but, owing to the high value of the material, care is taken to prevent any waste in its working. The plates, as separated by heat from the bony skeleton, are keeled, curved, and irregular in form. They are first flattened by heat and pressure, and superficial inequalities are rasped away. Being harder and more brittle than horn, tortoiseshell requires careful treatment in moulding it into any form, and as high heat tends to darken and obscure the material it is treated at as low a heat as practicable. For many purposes it is necessary to increase the thickness or to add to the superficial size of tortoiseshell, and this is readily done by careful cleaning and rasping of the surfaces to be united, softening the plates in boiling water or sometimes by dry heat, and then pressing them tightly together by means of heated pincers or a vice. The heat softens and liquefies a superficial film of the horny material, and that with the pressure effects a perfect union of the surfaces brought together. Heat and pressure are also employed to mould the substance into boxes and the numerous artificial forms into which it is made up.

Tortoiseshell has been a prized ornamental material from very early times. It was one of the highly esteemed treasures of the far East brought to ancient Rome by way of Egypt, and it was eagerly sought by wealthy Romans as a veneer for their rich furniture. In modern times it is most characteristically used in the elaborate inlaying of cabinet work known as buhl furniture. It is also employed as a veneer for small boxes and frames. It is cut into combs, moulded into snuffboxes and other small boxes, formed into knife-handles, and worked up into many other similar minor articles. The plates from certain other tortoises, known commercially as turtle-shell, possess a certain industrial value, but they are either opaque or soft and leathery, and cannot be mistaken for tortoiseshell. A close imitation of tortoiseshell can be made by staining translucent horn. See Comb, vol. vi. p. 178.

Tortosa, the Dertosa of Strabo and the Colonia Julia Augusta Dertosa of numerous coins, was a city of the ∏ercaαnes in Hispania Tarraconensis. Under the Moors it became a place of great importance as the key of the Ebro valley. It was taken by Louis the Pious in 811 (after an unsuccessful siege two years before), but was soon recaptured. Having become a haunt of.pirates, and exceedingly injurious to Italian commerce, it was made the object of a crusade proclaimed by Pope Eugenius III. in 1148, and was accordingly captured by Raymond Berengar, assisted by Templars, Pisans, and Genoese. Tortosa fell into the hands of the duke of Orleans in 1708, and was again surrendered in the War of Independence in 1811 to the French under Suchet, who held it till 1814.