,g,3. .SOME NEW BOOKS. 709 



^«s, Jeffr.) " and "( = //. concinna, Jeflfreys) " ; the latter is correct, 

 since it was Jeffreys' own species, but the former is misleading, 

 inasmuch as Jeffreys did not describe any such species. He held 

 (and we believe quite correctly) that the Limax sowerbyi, Fer., was a 

 synonym of L. niar<^inaiiis Miiil., and accordingly adopted the last 

 name. This could have been made quite clear by putting "( = L. 

 mayginatus, Miill. of Jeffr.)." 



It should also be pointed out that Cochlicopa, Fer., was a mixture 

 of very distinct forms, and to Risso belongs the credit of first defining 

 it accurately ; hence it is Cochlicopa, Risso, or cannot stand at all. 

 There are other small errors in the authorities quoted for specific 

 names, such as Hyalinia glabra, attributed to Studer, who, we believe, 

 never described it, while Miiller is throughout quoted as Mull., instead of 

 Miill. The compilers also persist in identifying Planorbis glaber, Jeff., 

 with the American form P. parvus, Say, although the distinctness of 

 the two has been pointed out [Proc. Geol. Assoc, vol. xi., p. 381). 



The most objectionable feature of the list, however, is the wholesale 

 introduction of the so-called varietal names. It is true that these trashy 

 designations (which in most cases are applied to mere variations and 

 not to varieties in the strict zoological sense of the term) are not so 

 abundant as in a certain other list recently published, where the 

 array of names appended as " vars." to each species sometimes leads 

 off with " typicus " or " typus " ; all the same, they are, scientifically 

 speaking, worthless save in instances, rare, indeed, in this limited 

 area, of forms well marked zoologically or geographically. It is sad 

 to think what an amount of time is wasted in the attempt to identify 

 these delusive " vars." that might be spent in the accomplishment of 

 work of real scientific value. Alas that the variety-monger should be 

 as blind to higher glory as the character depicted by Bunyan intently 

 gathering to himself not overclean straws ! The space these varietal 

 names consume might have been turned to account for valuable notes or 

 for synonymy, but this we fear we must wait for till a certain work, long 

 advertised as in preparation, shall appear. Unless, perhaps, since 

 the authors of that work are still struggling with the first genus, 

 Testacella, the Conchological Society may meantime arouse itself and 

 vindicate its high-sounding title by appointing a committee of its 

 competent members, who shall produce a correct and reliable list, 

 not of a section merely, but of the whole of the molluscan fauna of 

 these Islands and their surrounding waters. (BV).^ 



Contributions to the Study of the Sponges of the North Atlantic. 

 [Contributions a I'etude des Spongiaires de I'Atlantique Nord.] By E. 

 Topsent. Results of the Scientific Explorations of Albert I., Prince of 

 Monaco. 4to. Pp. 166, pis. xi. Fascicule ii. Monaco : 1892. 



In this beautiful monograph of 166 pages and 11 plates are described 

 the sponges collected by the Prince of Monaco, on board the 

 " Hirondelle," in the North Atlantic. The work is almost entirely 

 systematic, but, in an introduction, the author gives a short account 

 of his views on sponge histology — a subject to which he has himself 

 made important contributions in recent years. The whole number 

 of species described amounts to 167, of all orders, of which 58 are 

 new, with 8 new genera. With regard to these new species, we may 

 notice incidentally, for the benefit of that most necessary, but often 

 unappreciated person, the recorder, that though the author writes 

 n. sp. after the species, many of them have already been named 



