3o6 NATURAL SCIENCE. April, 



indicating reptiles closely allied to the typical African genus Dicynodon, 

 which are referred to several distinct species. He is, however, of 

 opinion that they cannot be included in that genus, and accordingly 

 refers them to a new one, for which the name Gordonia is suggested ; 

 but we have considerable misgivings whether the features he regards as 

 of generic value are really entitled to such importance. Be this as it 

 may, we cannot help thinking that in giving to each species of this 

 reputed genus the name of a person, the author has paid a poor 

 compliment to him in whose honour the genus itself is named. If a 

 genus founded on a personal name means anything at all, it means 

 that the animals so named are dedicated to the person whose name is 

 thus employed. Accordingly, Gordonia will signify Gordon's reptiles ; 

 but if we are to have Gordonia traquairi, Gordonia huxleyana, etc., etc., 

 the system of what we may call personal nomenclature appears, to 

 our thinking, reduced to an absurdity. We are not fond of 

 personal nomenclature at all, but the degree to which it is carried 

 here is certainly excessive, seeing that, out of the nine forms 

 described, seven have such names both generically and specifically ; 

 while an eighth has its generic name alone thus compounded. 



As the so-called Gordonia is closely allied to Dicynodon, so the 

 skull described as Geikia displays equally close affinities with 

 Lysirosaurus (Ptychognathus) ; but if palaeontologists are right in keeping, 

 on account of the absence of tusks, Udenodon apart from Dicynodon, 

 the author will be justified in giving a new name to the tuskless Elgin 

 form. We wish, however, that he would not continue to employ 

 names like PtychognatJms, which, on account of preoccupation, are 

 shown to be inadmissible ; and he need not have gone out of his way 

 here, and in the case of Pariasaunis, to ignore the most elementary 

 principles of classical transliteration, by an adherence to an incorrect 

 way of spelling which has been put right in some of the very works 

 he quotes. 



Perhaps the most interesting of all the forms described is the 

 remarkable horned skull designated Elginia, two of the figures of 

 which are here reproduced on a greatly reduced scale. After describing 

 the characters of this extraordinary skull, which, it will be observed, 

 has the whole of the temporal region completely roofed over, the 

 author proceeds to discuss its affinities. Here he, unfortunately, 

 displays such a total want of grasp of the relationships of the various 

 recent groups of reptiles as cannot but detract from the value of his 

 deductions. He says, for instance, that " although the Elgin Reptile 

 undoubtedly possesses several important Lacertilian characters, and 

 apparently finds its nearest living allies in that group, yet it presents 

 peculiarities of structure which prevents its being referred to the 

 Lacertilia." Seeing that it has a fixed quadrate, a lower temporal 

 arcade, and pterygoids meeting in the middle line, we perfectly agree 

 with the latter part of this sentence. Imagine, however, our astonish- 

 ment when, after reading a few lines further, we found that the 

 author actually includes the living New Zealand Sphenodon among 

 Lacertilia, although he has separated it from the true Lacertilia. 

 This is about as good as if some new shining light in zoology were 

 to propose to class tigers and elephants in the same order ! 



When an author appears so incapable as this of grasping the 

 relative importance of structural features in recent reptiles, it is not 

 much good attempting to follow him in his discussions on fossils. 

 He considers, however, that Elginia has its nearest ally in the 

 gigantic Pariasaiirns of the South African Karoo beds ; and in this we 

 believe he is right. When, however, he proceeds to observe that both 



