220 



NATURE 



\yan. 9, 1890 



organisms of the deep sea has led me to the conviction 

 that they are true sponges, for the most part modified in 

 a peculiar manner by the symbiosis with a commensal 

 organism which is very probably in most cases (if not in 

 all) a Hydropolyp stock." 



Four families and eleven genera of these strange forms 

 are described, and the species are well illustrated. With 

 some few of them we may have had a previous acquaint- 

 ance, but these turn up here with quite new faces ; for, " to 

 avoid further confusion," the author " proposes to employ 

 the term Haliphysema for that monothalamous Foramini- 

 fer in the sense of Mobius, Brady, and most recent 

 authors"; while "for the true Physemaria, however," 

 which he described in 1876 " as Haliphysema primordi- 

 alis, &c., it will be best to adopt the term Prophysema," 

 and he thinks that " it may be that the body-wall (in 

 these Physemaria) is perforated by numerous microsco- 

 pical pores, and that these were closed temporarily and 

 accidentally during the few hours I was examining them ; 

 in this case they are Ammoconidas," that is, belong to 

 the first family of these deep-sea Keratosa. 



In the truly extraordinary forms placed in the fourth 

 family of Stannomidas, containing specimens taken from 

 depths of between 2425 and 2925 fathoms, we find pre- 

 sent a fibrillar spongin skeleton, composed of thin, simple 

 or branched spongin fibrillae, never anastomosing or re- 

 ticulated and also symbiotic Hydroids. Haeckel thinks 

 that these " fibrillce " throw some light on the peculiar fila- 

 ments met with in the Hircinidae, and that in both in- 

 stances these fibres are not independent organisms, but 

 are produced by the sponges, in which they occur, and 

 should be regarded, as " monaxial Keratose spicules." 



In concluding this notice of one of the most remark- 

 able of the series of animal forms found during the ex- 

 pedition of the Challenger, we feel compelled to protest 

 against the style of the author's criticisms on Polejaefif's 

 previously published Reports on the Keratosa. It is very 

 easy to write that " the whole systematic work of Polejaefif 

 turns in a large circtdus viirosus" &c., &c., but is it fair 

 or just for one Reporter to thus, at the expense of Her 

 Majesty's Treasury, write of a fellow Reporter? Such 

 sentences must have been overlooked by the editor. 



This Report extends to ninety-two pages, and is accom- 

 panied by an atlas of eight coloured plates. 



THE VERTEBRATES OF LEICESTERSHIRE 

 AND RUTLAND. 



The Vertebrate Animals of Leicestershire and Rutland. 

 By Montagu Browne. Pp. 223, illustrated. (Birming- 

 ham and Leicester, 1889.) 

 AS we are informed in the preface, the volume before 

 us is the first complete work treating of the verte- 

 brate fauna of the two counties mentioned in the title, 

 which has hitherto appeared, although scattered notes 

 and a few lists have been published by several writers. 

 The author, who, from his position as Curator of the 

 Town Museum at Leicester, has exceptional opportunities 

 for a work of this nature, can certainly claim that the 

 result of his labours does not err on the side of incom- 

 pleteness. Thus this volume is not only a record of all 

 the existing species of vertebrates which have been 

 observed within the limits of the counties in question, but 



Hkewise includes the fossil forms hitherto described from 

 the same area. The recent and extinct forms are, indeed, 

 arranged together in a systematic manner, without any 

 difiference of type or other indication to distinguish at a 

 glance the fauna of the present from that of the past ;. 

 and it is certainly rather startling, at first sight, to 

 find in a fauna of an English Midland county the dor- 

 mouse immediately followed by elephants and rhino- 

 ceroses. Now, although we are not on the side of those 

 who regard the sciences of zoology and palccontology as 

 separated by a wide gulf, yet we venture to think that in 

 this instance the author would have been better advised 

 had he given his synopsis of extinct types in a separate 

 portion of the volume, after having first dealt with the 

 existing species. Faunas are, indeed, to a very large 

 extent, features of one particular epoch; and when we 

 have those of two or more distinct epochs mixed up 

 together, we tend to lose sight of the peculiar features 

 of each one. The ordinary student of the local distribution 

 of existing English mammals will find that the introduction 

 of a number of extinct types, of which he knows nothing, 

 tends to distract his attention from the observations 

 regarding the local distribution of the living forms. 

 Fortunately, indeed, this objection does not apply to the 

 birds, in which no extinct forms are recorded. 



The very natural tendency on the part of the author 

 to make as much as possible of his subject, probably 

 accounts for the introduction of some groups or species 

 which might have been better omitted, or, at all events, 

 passed over with a brief foot-note. Thus, in the first place, 

 the introduction of the family Hominidce could have been 

 very well spared, at all events in the systematic arrange- 

 ment. Then, again, the devoting of nearly two pages to 

 the order Cetacea seems to be very unnecessary, seeing 

 that the only ground for the introduction of this order 

 into the fauna of Leicestershire is that the bones of 

 whales are sometimes used as gate-posts, or in one 

 instance as an ornament to a carriage-drive ! The 

 author's remark in the latter instance that he records 

 " these, lest, in the event of their getting loose and being 

 subsequently dug up, they should be mistaken for bones 

 of an extinct elephant," reads as though intended for 

 a caustic sarcasm against palaeontologists. As another 

 instance, we may mention the case of the avocet (p. 150), 

 introduced on the ground that a gentleman fishing at 

 the junction of the Soar with the Trent, at the extreme 

 northernlimitof West Leicestershire,saw what he believed 

 to be an example of this bird flying overhead. The 

 inclusion of species on this account would almost justify 

 passengers passing through a town by railway being 

 entered among the list of visitors thereto. 



The same natural tendency to make the most of the 

 subject will probably account for the introduction of 

 sub-ordinal and sectional names {e.g. Carnivora Vera, 

 ^luroidea, Arctoidea, &c.) which are of no possible 

 importance in a work of this nature, and are really an 

 incumbrance. 



The author tells us he has followed the latest descrip- 

 tions throughout his work,' and we see that in several 

 instances he is even in advance of many writers in regard 

 to the adoption of early names on the ground of priority. 

 Thus the name Microtus is employed for the voles, in 

 lieu of the well-known Arvicolaj but in this particular 



