1899] ZOOLOGY IN BRAZIL 9 
execution and beauty of coloration characterising the double plate 
by which this article is illustrated. Our only regret is to find no 
mention of the habits of the various species of fishes referred to, 
although there is not improbably a sufficient reason for the omission, 
That the habits of animals are not overlooked is amply demon- 
strated in the article headed “A Senda Amazonica du ‘Caure.” This 
deals with a beautiful little kind of nest, containing a single egg, which 
had long been attributed to Walco rufigularis, the “Caure” of the 
Brazilians. Struck with its resemblance to the nest of the Oriental 
Collocalia nidijica, Dr. Goeldi came, however, to the conclusion that it 
must be the work of one of the Tree-Swifts. And actual observation 
has proved the truth of the conjecture; the real builder being 
Panyptila cayanensis. 
Other articles deal with the natives of Brazil, with the spiders of 
the country, and with the flora of Amazonia. A plate illustrating two 
species of monkey belongs to an article issued with an earlier part. 
According to the Fancy of the Speller. 
AN attempt has often been made by embryologists to distinguish 
between those processes of development which appear to express an 
adherence to the mode established in the long evolution of a race 
(palingenetie processes), and those which appear to express readjust- 
ments or new departures adapted to conditions of relatively more recent 
date (kainogenetic processes). Thus it might be said that the develop- 
ment of a paired (epiphysial) upgrowth from the fore-brain was a 
palingenetic process, while the particular fate of these upgrowths or of 
one of them (which is very diverse in different types) is kainogenetic. 
There are some to whom the distinction seems of paramount importance, 
there are others who deny its legitimacy altogether, while a third posi- 
tion is that of those who recognise the distinction as an attempt to 
discriminate the relative age of the establishment of a developmental 
process, but find it exceedingly difficult to establish this in practical 
detail. 
But, supposing the distinction be admitted as legitimate, what is its 
proper terminology? Keeping to the one root, cavds = new, we find, 
as Dr. Ernst Mehnert points out (Anat. Anzeig. xvi. 1899, pp. 29-31), 
cenogenesis, kenogenesis, cenegenie, caenogenese, and ciinogenese. Our 
acumen is not sufficiently specialised to distinguish between the last 
two, but what about the others, in regard to which Mehnert writes, in 
response to the hot irons of criticisms, with some forcefulness? As 
xevos Means empty or worse, as coenum or caenum means dirt or worse, 
as the announcement of a book on caenogenesis provoked the most 
violent astonishment (“heftigstes Staunen ”), as the author, whose work 
