354 NATURAL SCIENCE. Nov., 



I have had occasion, in the course of other duties, to read these 

 chapters with great care, and, though there are a few shps, I am glad 

 of this opportunity to praise the accuracy of detail and the use made 

 of recent writings. None the less do I consider that the work is to be 

 •condemned, and that an admirable opportunity has been passed by. 

 If the whole subject of the Brachiopoda cannot be dealt with by any 

 single one of the Cambridge morphologists, by all means let us have 

 two of them. But that is no reason why we should have two accounts 

 ■of shell-structure, two of ontogeny, two of classification ; still less why 

 the two accounts should be at variance with one another. One can 

 only suppose that here is some deep-laid plot to reduce to an absurdity 

 the severance of Recent from Fossil forms. For in this case it is not 

 merely wrong ; it is ridiculous. Mr. Shipley tells us that in the 

 Ecardines " the shell is chitinous, but sHghtly strengthened by a 

 deposit of calcareous salts " : Mr. Reed tells us that the Trimerellidse, 

 which he places in the Ecardines, "have heavy, thick calcareous 

 shells." Mr. Shipley puts his '^ Argiope" and " Cistella" into the 

 Terebratulidae : Mr. Reed constructs a separate family for them. 

 Mr. Reed gives an account of the phylogeny, which is based primarily 

 on features of embryonic development in living Brachiopoda : these 

 features are not even alluded to in Mr. Shipley's account of the 

 embryology. The difference between Cambrian and Recent forms is 

 perhaps less in the Brachiopoda than in any other group of the 

 Metazoa ; yet, were it not for the recurrence of a few names, the 

 general reader might well imagine that two quite distinct groups were 

 here being described. 



Now consider what might have been done. These two learned 

 and lucid writers might have joined forces ; they might have given 

 us an account of the anatomy that should not be self-contradictory; 

 they might have discussed the ontogeny of both fossil and living 

 brachiopods, showing how the former explain the latter ; they might 

 have told us the fascinating story of the evolution of the Brachiopoda, 

 from the Cambrian down to the present — the story that Darwin 

 longed in vain to hear, that Davidson himself could not tell, since the 

 key to its hieroglyphics was reserved for Beecher to find. And when 

 they had done this, they might have given us a classification (not two 

 classifications) which should be a summary of the whole history and 

 relationships of all Brachiopoda, living and extinct. That is what we 

 might have had. That is what Hall and Clarke have given us. But 

 the tale as told by Messrs. Shipley and Reed is "full of sound and 

 fury, signifying nothing." 



F. A. Bather. 



A New Work on Geographical Distribution. 



Cambridge Natural Science Manuals. A Text-Book of Zoogeography. By 

 Frank E. Beddard, M.A., F.R.S. Crown 8vo. Pp. vi., 246, with 5 maps. 

 Cambridge, 1895. Price 6s. 



Students must often have wished for a book on the geographical 

 distribution of animals giving the leading principles and the main 

 illustrative facts of that most fascinating branch of natural science 

 ■without the wealth of detail to be found in Dr. Wallace's classical 

 volumes. This want Mr. Beddard comes forward to supply. Ad- 

 mittedly founded largely on Dr. Wallace's writings and on the 

 excellent smaller books on the same subject by Professors Heilprin 

 and Trouessart, the present work contains a fair proportion of matter 

 not found in these, especially with regard to the distribution of various 



