.mt\htKm\^\. Bibliographical Notices. 507 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTICES. 



General Outline of the Organization of the Animal Kingdom^ and 

 Manual of Comparative Anatomy. By Thomas Rymer Jones, 

 F.R.S. Second edition. London, Van Voorst, 1855. 8vo. 



On the Continent, and especially in Germany, every important fact 

 in the anatomy and development of animals is sure, in the course of 

 a year or two from its discovery, to find itself embodied, with its 

 consequences upon zoological classification, in one of the numerous 

 manuals of Zoology or Comparative Anatomy with which the press 

 of that country teems. Everything is thus brought within the reach 

 of the student, who, at the commencement of his course, has merely 

 to buy one of the most recent of these works, in order to place him- 

 self pretty nearly in possession of the actual state of the science. 



To the English student, however, none of these advantages are 

 offered ; amongst the few books of this class and of any reputation, 

 the best was probably the first edition of the work which we have 

 now before us, and this, notwithstanding its undoubted merits, could 

 by no means be regarded, even at the time of its publication, as per- 

 fectly free from faults. These, the interval of fourteen years which 

 had elapsed since the book first made its appearance in the world, had 

 certainly not tended to diminish, and it was therefore with no small 

 satisfaction that we learnt that a new edition was forthcoming, as in it 

 we fondly hoped that the English student might at last obtain an idea 

 of the vast progress that has been made in Zoology within the last few 

 years, without the necessity of resorting to foreign literature for this 

 purpose. 



In this hope, however, we regret to say we have been disappointed. 

 In his second edition Professor Rymer Jones clings with astonishing 

 pertinacity to the grouping adopted in his first, and if we are to take 

 his book as our standard, zoological classification has made but little 

 progress since the days of Cuvier; for we cannot see that the division 

 of the Cuvierian Radiata into Acrita and Nematoneura, or the sub- 

 stitution of new names for the other three primary groups of that 

 author, constitutes any great step in advance. 



Retaining his old primary divisions, it is but just to say, however, 

 that our author has sacrificed a little to the spirit of the times ; but 

 even where this is the case, he seems to be hampered by his prejudices 

 in favour of his former views :— thus he adopts the group of the Pro- 

 tozoa, but still places it as a class of his Acrita \ and the different 

 sections into which these simple creatures are divided are mentioned 

 in such a manner that it is utterly impossible to understand what 

 comparative value the author attributes to them. Moreover he has 

 actually introduced amongst the Protozoa a description of the Sper- 

 matozoa, a somewhat unnecessary addition one would think, especially 

 as the author himself tells us that they are not independent organisms. 

 Another step in the right direction is the adoption of the Class of 

 Hydrozoa for the Hydroid polypes and Acalephs. 



When we look into the reinaiiiiiig groups of the Acrita and Nema- 



