i894. SOME NEW BOOKS. 145 



regarded as indicating the zone above the Cornbrash. The author 

 puts it (in the Appendix) as a fossil which ranges above the Corn- 

 brash ; and this admission seems to call in question the wisdom of 

 the division adopted — a division not accepted by Continental authors. 

 At the same time, it excites a doubt whether A . macrocephalus belongs 

 to the Cornbrash, or whether the Cornbrash may not be only a litho- 

 logical series of different palaeontological age in different districts. 

 We are inclined to ask, " What is Cornbrash ? ", well aware that every 

 geological student preparing for his first examination would think 

 himself able to instruct us. 



In the " Great Oolite Series" we are introduced to a new term, 



" Fullonian," an impossible word from /////o;zms, which we hope will 



not be adopted. Only one Ammonite zone comprises the " FuUonian," 



and the greater part of the Bathonian. This is an extraordinary 



inversion of the value of terms, and it shows where work is required 



in this country. It also forcibly illustrates the lithological tendencies 



of the author. He can appreciate and recognise subdivisions where 



they are based on lithological characters, because these are so striking 



and catch the eye so readily that it would be impossible for anyone 



to overlook them. When, however, it comes to the more difficult 



task of looking beneath the surface, and understanding divisions made 



upon palseontological grounds, the author shows himself unable to 



perform it. Although the volume does not profess " to enter into 



minute particulars [which] belong to the domain of the specialist in 



some restricted field of palaeontological research," yet it does enter 



into such particulars where lithology is concerned. Thus, as litholo- 



gist, the author is able to recognise eleven subdivisions of the Inferior 



Oolite ; as palaeontologist he can only see four. In our opinion, the 



volume marks the specialisation of the lithologist, and though we do 



not find fault with it on that account, for that is where its value lies 



as a scientific work, yet we take exception to the unequal treatment 



accorded to palaeontology. 



Perhaps the incorrectness of the palaeontology is best exemplified 

 in the woodcuts which illustrate the work. We confess to a difficulty 

 in understanding why the woodcuts are given, because if the general 

 geologist can identify his specimens therefrom he possesses skill 

 denied to any specialist. Even if he do succeed he is no better off, 

 for he will be wofully misled as to names. Why, when the original 

 types were figured in British works, and when many of them are 

 accessible in the British Museum, the woodcuts of what purport 

 to be the same species should have been prepared from foreign 

 figures, we are unable to understand. The result is certainly disastrous. 

 Page 46 shows woodcuts of Ammonites sowerbyi, A. miirchisoiuv, and A. 

 humphriesianus, all after d'Orbigny, whereas these fossils were named 

 and figured by Sowerby. But d'Orbigny's A . sowerbyi disagrees in 

 many respects with the type. His A. muvchisoncB is not admitted 

 to be that species at all, and his A. JiumpJiviesiamis was named as a 

 different species forty years ago by Oppel. Again, p. 48 shows a wood- 

 cut of A. pavkinsoni after d'Orbigny, where a copy of Sowerby's type- 

 figure might just as well have been given, and it would have saved 

 the author the mistake of depicting as A. pavkinsoni what has been 

 separated by another name for some years. Worse, however, remains 

 than this. Among the " Cornbrash fossils " shown in page 432, 

 fig. 119 gives Ammonites discus, after d'Orbigny. This is another of 

 Sowerby's species and the type is from the Cornbrash ; but d'Orbigny 

 figured as his fossil an Inferior Oolite shell. With unfortunate 



