138 NATURAL SCIENCE. Fes, 
self well, and more than well; and any criticisms that we may have 
to make must be looked upon rather as suggestions than as indicating 
a carping spirit. 
One of the most striking restorations in the book is that of the 
Horned Cretaceous Dinosaur forming the frontispiece, which we 
are enabled to reproduce (Fig. 1). Now, so far as regards the head and 
body, there is little room for criticism, but the case is very different 
when we come to the limbs. In the first place, we are led to ask 
why the artist took for his model—as we are fain to suppose he did 
—an Ungulate Mammal instead of a Crocodile in his restoration of 
the hind-limbs. That is to say, we wish to know why the upper 
segment of the hind-limb (femur) is included in the common integu- 
ment of the body, instead of being, as in the Crocodile, free. We 
should, indeed, have thought it much safer to follow the 
crocodilian model in this respect. Then, again, we have greatest 
doubts as to whether the creature ever had the prominent Ungulate- 
like heel with which it is represented, as, on turning to the figure 
of its skeleton on page 166, we find there is no backward projection 
of the calcaneum, so that here also the departure from the crocodilian 
model seems unjustifiable. In the fore-limb it is, further, quite evident 
that the joint which appears intended to represent the wrist is placed 
much too high up; and we also doubt if any reptile could possibly 
have had the ‘‘action”’ in the fore-limb which the forward bend of 
this joint on the right side is clearly intended to represent. In all 
these points the want of an anatomical knowledge on the part of the 
author wherewith to check the exuberant fancy of his artist is only 
too apparent ; and the former would certainly have been well advised 
had he submitted the sketches to some person well versed in the 
osteology of reptiles before having them photographed. 
We may remark here that the author calls the reptile in question 
by the name Triceratops, but he should have been aware that this is 
certainly not its proper title; and we notice all through the book a 
lamentable want of care in this respect, the names assigned by one 
particular paleontologist to the animals figured being taken without the 
least enquiry as to whether they are correct. We should have thought, 
moreover, that in a popular work the insertion of specific names in the 
case of these giant reptiles was perfectly unnecessary, and only too 
likely to make it repellent to the unscientific public. Then, again, 
the number of generic terms introduced into the text is, to our fancy, 
far too numerous—more especially when many of them are probably 
synonyms. For instance, it would have been far better to allude to 
the skull figured on page 79 as that of a Carnivorous Dinosaur, 
rather than as Ceratosaurus, seeing that both Professors Cope and 
Baur are confident that it belongs to Megulosauwvus. The author is 
also, in some cases, somewhat careless as to sources from which he 
derives his figures, and we may remind him that the skeleton figured 
on page 75 is mot after Marsh. 
