their language for palm-tree and came, in sound, nearest to _alpha_, and began with an _A_. Instead of _beta_ they said _beith_, the word for birch-tree, almost the same in sound as the Phoenician, but quite different in meaning. And so with the other letters: _Coll_, hazel; _duir_, oak; _eadha_, aspen; _fearan_, alder; _gort_, ivy; _huath_, whitethorn; _iogha_, yew; _luis_, mountain-ash; _muin_, vine; _nuin_, ash; _oir_, broom; _peith_, dwarf-elder; _suil_, willow; _teine_, furze; _ur_, heath. They called this alphabet _bethluisnion_, choosing out the letters B, L, and N, instead of the letters A and B, to form a name. Another term, more nearly like the word alphabet, was _aibcitie_, or A-B-C order, the syllable _tie_ meaning order, or sequence. Living in wooden houses, in lands mostly covered with trees, the people of Ireland were specially fond of plants, and so named their letters from plants alone. Such a method may possibly point to an early syllabic system among these races, founded on pictures of trees and plants, on leaves, on hunting-tools, and things connected with woodcraft; but at present we can only make this guess. It is very unlikely that so early and rude a writing would be placed on stone or metal, and so come down to us. The Egyptians used trees or plants but seldom, either in their symbolic or alphabetic hieroglyphics. Our S alone, of the letters, comes from a little picture of growing plants, which is supposed to represent a garden overflowed by the Nile. Egypt was peculiarly wanting in forests. Population was dense and animals abounded. On the other hand, a partiality for trees is found in all the Celtic tribes. The intense love of nature shown in the modern literature of Germany, France, and Italy, of Great Britain and the United States, may be traced to the Highland Scotch, and from this may be derived the still more modern passion for pictures of landscape.