Miscellaneous. 139 
alphabetical sequence, the printing cannot be commenced until all 
the manuscripts are ready, which will cause great delay in its 
appearance ; by the arrangement under the principal types, on the 
contrary, the printing of any volume can begin as soon as the 
manuscript for it is in hand. In the one case the neglect of a 
single contributor will delay the appearance of the whole book, in 
the other case only that of a single volume. The difficulties which 
may arise from genera of doubtful position may be got over by cross 
references. That the addition of an ‘ Enumerator’ is very desirable 
need hardly be indicated.” 
While we cannot help feeling that Bronn’s plan, pure and simple, 
is absolutely the best, especially in view of the second advantage 
belonging to it, which Dr. Neumayr has pointed out, with relation 
to genera containing species which later researches have proved to 
belong to different primary divisions of the animal kingdom, and 
indeed with relation to doubtful organisms of all kinds, we cannot, 
on the other hand, deny the force of his arguments in favour of the 
division of the ‘ Nomenclator’ in accordance with the great groups 
of the animal and vegetable kingdoms, more especially when we 
look at the formidable dimensions which he considers the new work 
will attain. He proposes to divide it into twelve volumes, as fol- 
lows :— 
Vol. I. Cryptogamia. Vol. VII. Mollusca. 
II. Phanerogamia. VILL. Arthropoda. 
III. Protozoa. IX. Vertebrata. 
IY. Coelenterata. X. & XI. Enumerator. 
V. Echinodermata. XII. Index. 
VI. Vermes and Molluscoida. 
It seems to us that, supposing the suggested arrangement to be 
carried out as above, the usefulness of the work will very much de- 
pend upon the completeness of the index, which ought to furnish a 
guide to every employment of a name (generic or specific) in any 
part of the book, and in the case of specific names to indicate in 
every case the genus under which the species has been placed in 
each particular instance. With such an index as this nearly all 
the advantages of Bronn’s plan will be again realized. 
Dr. Neumayr further enters upon astatement of the principles on 
which he proposes that the work should be carried out, which seem 
to us to be exceedingly well conceived. ‘Two points are especially 
deserving of approval, namely :—1. The regulation that no changes 
of names shall be made in the ‘ Nomenclator; and 2, the pro- 
posal to avoid as much as possible all conventional signs, and to 
adopt a system of abbreviations in the citations such as will be at 
once intelligible to every one “‘ who possesses some knowledge of 
literature,” a course which we hope may lead to the suppression of 
that most vicious system of quoting from separate copies of papers 
without any reference to the periodical works in which they occur, 
which now prevails to a very serious extent. Dr. Neumayr’s remark 
as to people possessing “some” knowledge of literature would 
