32 



NATURE 



[January 31, 1901 



the fulness with which it is illustrated, and the some- 

 what restricted circulation of treatises devoted to 

 zoological subjects, the work is a marvel of cheapness ; 

 and the manner in which it is turned out reflects the 

 greatest credit on the publishers. Allusion has been 

 previously made to the popular and interesting style in 

 which it is written ; and as examples of clear and ac- 

 curate treatment of somewhat difficult subjects we may 

 call attention to the description, in Part ii., of a bird's 

 respiration while on the wing, and the manner in which 

 the flight-feathers present either an impervious barrier or 

 an easily traversed sieve to the air according to the 

 exigencies of flight at the moment. The descriptions of 

 these functions are, indeed, decidedly better than in any 

 other text-book with which we are acquainted ; and they 

 are by no means solitary instances, both in the vertebrate 

 and invertebrate parts. Again, the diagram of the 

 circulation of the carp on p. 274 may be cited as an 

 excellent example of clearness. And it may be con- 

 fidently affirmed that, so far as physiology and habits are 

 concerned, the work is for the most part all that can be 

 desired. 



But physiology and the description of the habits of 

 animals, although of the highest importance, by no 

 means constitute the whole of zoology ; and whether the 

 subject be treated from a " biological " or from any other 

 standpoint, there can at the present day be no sort of 

 excuse for the numerous omissions and inaccuracies 

 which occur in the systematic portion of Part ii. Even 

 if the author's acquaintance with systematic zoology were 

 insufficient to enable him to recognise these short- 

 comings, it should have been, as we said before, a part 

 of the editor's task to see that these were remedied in 

 the English translation. 



Were we so disposed, we could seize many oppor- 

 tunities of finding fault with the generic and specific 

 nomenclature employed ; but we will let such minor 

 matters pass without notice, and content ourselves with 

 calling attention to other points. 



Taking first the section on birds, we find that not only 

 is the classification of a decidedly antiquated type, and 

 very different from any of those corhmonly employed, but 

 that it also contains several errors and inconsistencies. 

 The group " Impennes,"for example, was formed in 181 1 

 by Illiger for the penguins, but in the present work (p. 225) 

 we find it typified by the divers, which, together with 

 the grebes, constitute Illiger's " Pygopodes " ! Nor is 

 this all, for whereas the " Impennes " are termed 

 " Divers," yet no representative of the divers proper 

 (Colymbidcc) is referred to in the work ; the notice of 

 the group commencing with the grebes, which are fol- 

 lowed by the auks, and these, again, by the penguins — the 

 typical and sole representatives of the entire order. 

 Take, again, the case of the gulls or " Lariform " birds 

 (page 223). Here we have first an account of the herring- 

 gull, followed, under the head of "allied species," with a 

 brief mention of the black-headed gull and the albatross. 

 Of course, it is justifiable to follow Dumeril in including 

 both the gulls and the albatross in a single group (Longi- 

 pennes), but the reader should have been informed that, 

 according to the universal usage of British ornitholo- 

 gists, the albatross and the other petrels are separated 

 from the gulls as a distinct order (Tubinares). 

 NO. 1 63 1, VOL. 63] 



To take a third instance, those responsible for the book 

 may, if they please, follow the totally obsolete system 

 of including the so-called American vultures (Cathartida;) 

 among the Vulturidae, or true vultures of the Old World. 

 But there is no justification whatever for taking the 

 condor as the sole example of the latter family, and avoid- 

 ing all mention of a single species that really belongs to it ! 

 And here it maybe remarked that we think ornithologists 

 would be well advised if they discarded the use of the 

 name " Vultures " for the Cathartida;, and called them all 

 "Condors." Misprints, we are glad to notice, seem few 

 and far between in this and the other sections of the 

 book, but Alaudictae, in place of Alaudidas (p. 181), 

 should have caught the proof-reader's eye. 



Passing on to the section on reptiles, we have to de- 

 plore the use of an antiquated and discredited classifica- 

 tion, the groups Ophidia and Lacertilia bemg regarded as 

 of equal value with Crocodilia and Chelonia. But even 

 more serious is the total absence of the Rhynchocephalia 

 among the ordinal groups of the Reptilia, its single repre- 

 sentative, the New Zealand tuatera, being, so far as we 

 can see, not even mentioned in the book ! Surely, 

 even from a " biological standpoint," such a remarkable 

 creature is worthy of some notice in a " zoological text- 

 book ! " 



Nor are minor points for criticism lacking in this 

 section. For instance, on p. 246, the account of the 

 American alligator is simply ludicrous ; while the reader 

 should have been informed that an allied species occurs 

 in China. Again, had the editor taken the trouble to 

 refer to the British Museum "Catalogue of Chelonians,'' 

 he would have found that there is no justification for the 

 use of the name " Chersidae " for the land tortoises 

 (p. 250), and also that in place of Testudo indica being 

 the proper title for the " giant tortoises" of the Galapagos 

 Islands, that name denotes an extinct species from the 

 Mauritius. 1 



Omitting mention of the Amphibians (not because 

 there is no room for criticism), a few remarks are called 

 for in the section devoted to fishes. Here the up-to-date 

 zoologist can scarcely fail to be surprised to find the 

 group divided into (i) bony fishes, (2) enamel-scaled 

 fishes, (3) sharks and rays, (4) round-mouthed fishes, 

 and (5) lancelets, without the slightest indication as to 

 differences in the value of such divisions. To those who 

 have kept themselves at all abreast of modern zoological 

 research, it is almost inconceivable that such a classifica- 

 tion should be presented to students. 



As regards the details of the class in question, it is 

 decidedly strange to find the " enamel-scaled " group 

 exemplified by the sturgeons, while the two living types 

 (bony pike and bichir) which alone retain scales of this 

 description are totally ignored ; and surely the unique 

 type of limb-structure presented by the latter alone among 

 modern fishes should have itself entitled the creature to 

 special mention. Even more startling is the omission of 

 any reference to the lung-fishes (Dipnoi), which we pre- 

 sume the author would include' in the " enamel-scaled " 

 group, although the student is left entirely in the dark on 

 this important point. 



Without in any way wishing to be unduly severe, we 



1 Neither the popular nor scientific name of this reptile occurs in the 

 index. 



