1894. SOME NEW BOOKS. 6r 



knowledge of the former distribution of Indian gavials which is denied 

 to humble individuals like ourselves. Two pages later, we meet 

 with the astounding statement that a " genus probably attained a 

 length of ten or twelve feet." May we ask how you measure a genus, 

 as this is another point in which we confess to a pitiful state of 

 ignorance ? Again, on page 212, we notice that the genus Paloplo- 

 therium is stated to be on the ancestral line of the horse, and to be 

 very similar to Hyracotheriiun . We have, hitherto, been misguided 

 enough to believe that the animal known as Paloplotherium was 

 identical with the one mentioned on page 180 a.s Pal csotherium minus, 

 and that it had nothing on earth to do with the descent of the horse. 

 We must, however, presume that the learned author is here also 

 enabled to correct by his knowledge the ignorance in which we 

 have hitherto been enveloped. The statement on page 112, that 

 these and other creatures " are all nearly related to a previously 

 known but larger animal, called by Cuvier Lophiodon," likewise reads 

 to us somewhat curiously, seeing that the genus Lophiodon includes 

 about a score of species, ranging in size from a sheep to a big 

 rhinoceros. 



Although the limited state of our knowledge, in comparison with 

 that apparently possessed by the author, precludes our criticising such 

 statements with the authority which is desirable, we are not 

 hampered by any such disabilities when we point out manifest con- 

 tradictions in the book. Turning, for instance, to page 130, we read 

 that, *' it has sometimes been asserted that birds were derived 

 from dinosaurs in the course of evolution, but this is not a correct 

 statement of the views of leading naturalists such as Professor 

 Huxley " ; but a little later (pp. 151, 152) it is written that " we have 

 already alluded to Professor Huxley's theory that birds are descended 

 from dinosaurs." This is unkind, as it would have been a source of 

 great gratification to us to have learnt what the professor's views on 

 this interesting subject really are. Be they what they may, the 

 author is, however, by no means prepared to give them his unqualified 

 assent, and accordingly draws upon his own stores of knowledge of 

 the anatomy of the two groups in question in order to disprove them. 



Before leaving the author's style, may we suggest to him that it 

 would be much less irritating to ourselves, and probably to other 

 readers, if, when mentioning the names of the authorities referred to, 

 he would refrain from appending certain mystic letters to their names ? 

 Such additions only spoil the look of the text, and, although it is just 

 conceivable that it may gratify a small percentage of the personages 

 thus honoured to see such additions to their names, to the ordinary 

 reader it is a matter of the most supreme indifference whether they 

 are entitled to be called F.G.S., F.R.S., L.C.C., or P.C.L.P. (parish 

 councillor for Little Pedlington !) ; and on this subject we commend 

 Lowell's " Note to Title-page " of the " Biglow Papers " to the 

 author's notice. We cannot, moreover, pass over the statement 

 on page 18, to the effect that in England " so little is done 

 for the cause of science by our rulers." In the first place, in 

 this democratic age it is not " our rulers " but ourselves who are 

 responsible for the amount spent on science ; and, secondly, in our 

 own opinion, considering the very small percentage of the population 

 that takes an interest in Zoological Science, quite sufficient money is 

 expended by Government thereon. Personally, as a taxpayer, the 

 writer would be most unwilling to contribute a single farthing more 

 towards such a subsidy. 



Reverting for a moment to the Labyrinthodonts, we confess that 



