430 NATURAL SCIENCE. June. 



which, though it professes to deal with a single family only, really deals in a most 

 comprehensive and suggestive manner with the morphology of the whole group to 

 which that family belongs, — could hesitate for a moment in declaring it far and 

 away the best " modern attempt to deal in a broad, yet thorough manner with the 

 group Polychasta." And, even were it not for Eisig amongst others. Dr. Benham 

 could hardly be described as the "first" to make the attempt in modern times 

 when we remember the names of Ehlers, Grube, Von Marenzeller, Hatschek, 

 Saint-Joseph, Gravier, and Racovitza, all of whom, in the last twenty years, 

 have not only made the attempt, but have been by no means unsuccessful in 

 so doing. I am well aware that Eisig does not deal in detail with the appendages of 

 the head and the minute forms of the chastac in the different families, but I should 

 have thought that no one claiming to be a " student of the anatomy of the Poly- 

 chreta" and to have been so, I believe, for some years, could fail to have discovered 

 how little reliance can be placed on such external features, and to perceive that it is 

 to the internal anatomy that we must look for the solution of the many puzzling 

 problems in the morphology of these worms which may help us to a " clear under- 

 standing of their classification." 



It seemed to me that your reviewer erred rather on the side of leniency than 

 otherwise, in that he chose a few small points to find fault with when there were 

 many more important statements in the book, the incompleteness of which would 

 lead one who knew nothing about the subject to infer the exact opposite of the 

 truth. And it is, to my mind, no excuse to say that in some cases (it would not be 

 true to say "in all ") the statement may, if looked for, be found elsewhere in the 

 book accurately made and with its necessary qualifications, but rather the admission 

 of a second fault, for space might have been saved with great advantage, and room 

 left for important facts which find no place in the work, by stating a fact but once. 

 The author, for instance, might have made up his mind cither to draw comparisons 

 after dealing with each organ (or system of organs) in his type genus, or to 

 devote a separate chapter to comparisons. It was not necessary or desirable to 

 do both. 



You would probably not allow me- space to point out some of the many " mis- 

 leading statements " (as I will call them for Mr. Goodrich'se dification) which seem 

 to me of more consequence than some of those mentioned by your reviewer. But 

 there is one point which I feel, in the interest of all future students of the Poly- 

 chaeta, should not be passed over without comment. The " Cambridge Natural 

 History Series is intended," we were originally told by the publishers, "in the first 

 instance for those who have not had any special scientific training." Now I imagine 

 that any such person, after perusal of the chapters we are here considering, would 

 conclude that the classification given on p. 258 and dealt with more fully in 

 chapter xii., was the one generally accepted by authorities on the Polychaeta. I 

 venture, however, to think that no one of the great authorities of the group would 

 for a moment admit a classification which (amongst other things) : 



(i) Separates such closely allied families as the Capitellidae, Opheliidae, and 

 Maldanidaj by placing them in two distinct suborders, while leaving such totally 

 dissimilar families as e.g. the Aphroditidas, Syllidse, Tomopteridae, Glyceridae, 

 and Typloscolecidse in one suborder ; 



(2) Nowhere gives any indication as to the relationship between the families in 

 a suborder (unless perchance the order they are placed in is meant to have some 

 such significance), nor of one suborder to another; 



(3) Takes no account of such important genera as Staurocephalus and Spiocha- 

 topterus, to say nothing of Palmyra which, though important, is not common, and of 

 Gattiola (Amblyosyllis) and Sahellides, which, though fairly common, are of rather less 

 classificatory importance ; 



(4) Leaves such genera as Spinther, Euphrosyne, and Amphinome in one family 

 while making two distinct families of the Spionidas and Polydoridae ; 



(5) Places families which pass almost imperceptibly into one another in distinct 

 suborders (Spionidae and Cirratulidae), or even Orders (Spionidae and Amphicorinidae, 

 though here we must remember Mr. Goodrich's information that Dr. Benham does 

 not agree with those who have most carefully studied the subject). 



