Oct.. 1894. SOME NEW BOOKS. 299 



sources. Similarly, though Dr. Bernard makes a point of ascribing 

 his figures only to their original authors, we note some curiously 

 erroneous ascriptions ; for instance, fig. 402 is not by Lydekker but 

 by David Page, while Nicholson should hardly be credited with the 

 well-known figure of the teeth of Cochliodus by Agassiz. To take one 

 more instance, no man that had ever examined a Sepia shell for 

 himself could have called the "pad" the homologue of the 

 pro-ostracum of the Belemnite, or could have denied that the posterior 

 end was septate. Lapses such as these will, however, always and 

 inevitably be found in the work of those writers who, in Transatlantic 

 phrase, bite more than they can chew. The critic is obliged to point 

 them out, and when they rise above a certain percentage he is obliged 

 to be severe, though some offending authors are of the contrary 

 opinion ; and possibly the authors are not wholly wrong in their 

 protest, for after all the people that reahy deserve chastisement are 

 those who encourage young and untried writers to grapple with a 

 subject that demands the co-operation of numerous specialists. The 

 authors are whipping-boys for these, the true offenders, so let the 

 strokes be lightly laid on ! 



To detail the treatment of the various groups dealt with in this 

 second section would be lengthy and wearisome. We shall only 

 venture on a few remarks. 



The account of the Cephalopoda is clearly influenced by Munier- 

 Chalmas, a fact by no means to be regretted, for that naturalist, though 

 he has undoubtedly thought much, has published little on this fasci- 

 nating subject. Hence we find the order Ammonoidea removed from 

 the Nautiloidea, and boldly placed alongside of the Decapoda and 

 Octopoda. We admit that very much may be said in favour of this 

 association ; but it is possible to go too far. A short time ago Mr. H. 

 Woods informed the world that the Ammonoidea possessed " two 

 pairs of gills, two pairs of auricles, and two pairs of kidneys." Now 

 Dr. Bernard states that they are " pourvus de 2 branchies et de 2 

 oreillettes," and that they have a " Systeme nerveux a ganglions bien 

 delimites." It is clear that these gentlemen cannot both be right ; 

 and, as neither of them has as yet offered an atom of proof in support 

 of his assertions, it is perfectly open to us to maintain that neither of 

 them is right. Indeed, Dr. Bernard admits that if we knew the 

 animals that inhabited the Ammonite shells we should probably attach 

 less importance to names derived from the number of gills. Why con- 

 tinue to assume a knowledge though you have it not ? Owen's classi- 

 fication was excellent and the obvious one, so long as attention was 

 fixed on recent Cephalopoda ; but the researches of Branco, Hyatt, 

 Munier-Chalmas and others on extinct Cephalopoda have made its 

 retention, even in a modified form, a conspicuous absurdity. 



To the families that constituted the Dibranchiata of Owen the 

 name " Belemnoi'des " is here applied, a name that has always struck 

 us as singularly unhappy when thus extended to Cephalopods unpro- 

 vided with a belemnon or guard and even in some cases without a shell. 

 The account of this order is well up-to-date, but we regret still to 

 find statements that we believe incapable of proof. Spirula, for 

 instance, is surely not the " Belemnoid " most nearly allied to the 

 Nautiloid and Ammonoid type. It is coiled in the inverse direction, 

 while the statement that its body is for a considerable period 

 contained within the shell is a pure assumption. It is 

 probably descended, as Dr. Bernard admits, from Spimlirostra, 

 and is therefore separated from the coiled Ammonite shell by all its 



