1896. CORRESPONDENCE. 215 



Texfilaria for example, that one of the species is found in all seas and at all depths, 

 that the remaining two forms are very closely allied, if not the same, and that 

 the more robust of the two is to be found commonly in localities having a far 

 different character to that of the locality specially selected, we cannot see that such 

 association can furnish evidence of much value. 



4. Dr. Hume passes over the evidence adduced by us from our Indian Ocean 

 soundings, notwithstanding that they are admittedly derived from a non-terrigenous 

 deposit, because we did not give the actual list of species obtained. We omitted 

 the list simply for the sake of brevity. It is as follows : — Saccantmina sph^rica, 

 Hyperavimina elongata, H. subnodosa, H. vagans, H. ramosa, Rhabdammina abyssorum, 

 Rheophax pihilifera, R. dentalinifovmis, R. nodulosa, R. guttifera, R. spintlifera, R. distans, 

 Haplophragmium agglutinans, H. emaciaUim, H. rotulatnm, H. latidorsatum, H. glomeratum, 

 H. globigeriniforme, Ammodisciis tenuis, A . gordialis, A . charoides, Trochamniina trullissata, 

 T. riugens, TextUaria quadrilatera, T. agglutinans, T. agglutinans var. augusta, T. agglu- 

 tinans var. porrecta, Vernenilina pygniisa, V. polystropha, V. propinqua, Gaudvyina 

 pupoides, G. siphonella, Clavtilina communis. Many of them, it will be seen, are 

 coarse forms, and though Mr. Hume would like to leave some of the genera and 

 species out of consideration, notwithstanding their coarseness, we do not see that 

 he is entitled to do so. 



5. We are accused of understanding the word "occur" in the sentence — 

 " Those species which are restricted to the Chalk Marl and Lower Grey Chalk are 

 those that occur to-day at depths of less than 400 fathoms " — as being synonymous 

 with the phrase " are restricted to." We did not so understand it; but we did 

 assume that it bore more than the merest literal signification. Surely the argument 

 which the evidence was brought forward to support requires that the species cited 

 should be particularly characteristic, at the present day, of depths not exceeding 

 400 fathoms. Moreover, if the word "occur" in the passage quoted is to bear a 

 literal signification only, what is the force of the following parallel statement from 

 the author's paper on the Genesis of the Chalk (p. 226) : " It is of importance to 

 note, then, that the Foraminifera which predominate in the lower zones of the 

 Lower Chalk are those which do not pass beyond the ^oo-/athom line"? We are 

 further accused of taking the species dealt with by us in detail " from various 

 parts of the paper." It cannot be contended that we have wrongly brought them 

 together as constituting the evidence in support of the argument ; and that being so, 

 we can only say that for their distribution over the paper we were not responsible. 



6. Dr. Hume objects that, when referring to the number of arenaceous species 

 found in the soundings seventy miles from Raine Island at depths of 790 and 985 

 fathoms respectively, we " quite forgot to mention that at Raine Island itself at 

 155 fathoms there are thirteen genera and forty-six species." We were not un- 

 mindful of the fact ; but we were anxious to compare only things comparable. Our 

 own material from the two soundings above-mentioned consists in each case of the 

 contents of the sounding-tube at one haul. The quantity of material is the same. 

 The "Challenger," off Raine Island, took "soundings and dredgings,"and doubtless 

 obtained a great quantity of material. Had we had as much material from the 

 deeper soundings we referred to, we should doubtless have found a much larger 

 number of "genera " and " species." 



In conclusion, we should like to state again that we have made no attempt to 

 disprove the main hypothesis that Dr. Hume has brought forward. It is quite 

 possible that it may prove perfectly sound. It seemed to us, and it seems so still, 

 that the evidence adduced from the distribution of recent Foraminifera had in it 

 many weak points. 



H. W. Burrows. 

 R. Holland. 



Peripatus in the "Cambridge Natural History." 



I AM glad to have the opportunity, which your review on the last volume of the 

 "Cambridge Natural History " has given me, to refer to the attempt made by Mr. 

 Pocock to break up the genus Peripatus and to establish three genera in its place. 

 Your reviewer reproaches me with having taken no notice of this suggestion, which 



