December, 1901.] 



KNOWLEDGE 



279 



to those who niav rocjuiro a sovmd introductory work on astronomy, 

 and we tliiuk also that those who may be uheady familiar 

 with the subject will tiud the author's methods of considerable 

 interest. 



"Irish ToroGRArnicvi. Botany." By Robert Lloyd Praeger, 

 (Dublin Academy House.) With 6 maps. 10s. 6d. — The ain)ear- 

 ance of such works as the second edition of "Cybele Hibernica" 

 and Iho volume before us within a period of four years implies 

 cttnsiderable nrent- activity on the juirt of Irish botanists. This 

 is confirmed by a i>crusal of the long; list of papers which have 

 been used by the author in the compilation of this volume, a 

 large projxirtion of which have appeareil during the last decade. 

 From the point of view of plant distribution. Ireland, by reason 

 of Its geographical position, geological structure and climated 

 conditions presents peculiar features of interest. It. had, more- 

 over, fallen .somewhat behind the sister island in the study of 

 its to|Higraphical botany, and the present advance was, there- 

 fore, highly desirable. The author, already well known by Ills 

 numerous contributions to Irish botanical literature, has done 

 yeoman service in bringing together the results of his own 

 observations and those of other workers, in a form which will 

 be of immense value to local botanists as well as to those «ho 

 require materials for a study of plant -distribution on a larger scale. 

 For the purposes of this work Ireland is partitioned into 40 

 botanical divisions, corresponding for the most part with the 

 counties, the six largest of which are further divide<l into 14 

 parts. The boundaries of the divisions. cho.sen with a view 

 to their easy recognition in the field.. are, therefore, not as a 

 rule natural, and the scientific significance of the records is 

 in consequence somewluit disguised. On the other liand, 

 the areas are thus nuule comparable in .size with those 

 adopted by Watson for Great Britain, which is a, point of some 

 importance. The author makes a new departure from the 

 established custom of similar works in the use of the lat*st 

 records of localities in preference to those of the first discoverers. 

 This, we think, is entirely commendable, as the object of the 

 work is to give an account of the present-day condition of the 

 flora rather than to perpetuate the memories of pioneers. 

 At the same time, by comparing the late with the earlier records 

 it would have been possible to draw up a list of plants which in 

 the course of climatal, cultural, and other changes, have dis- 

 appeared from certain localities. Such a list would be of con- 

 siderable interest, and we have sought for it in vain. 



The introduction is well written and contains much interesting 

 information. A general explanation of the significance of the 

 different types, signs, contractions, and punctuation used in the 

 body of the work is to be found on pages xeii.-xcix. Although 

 these are generally uniform with those used m other works of 

 the kind, and are therefore familiar to botanists, wo think, 

 nevertheless, that it would have been an advantage if these 

 explanations were given in the preface or in some equally con- 

 spicuous position where they would be more easily found. 



The topographical botany of Ireland, as is shown on plate 4, 

 is still by no means thoroughly worked out. Those who carry 

 on the research will find their labours much lightened by this 

 gathering together of all the information at present available. 

 The author is to be sincerely congratulated upon the producliim 

 of a work which has involved no small amount of labour and 

 personal sacrifice, and the appearance of which will be hailed 

 with satisfaction by all interested in Irish botany. 



"Dr-\goks of the Air; An Aciotint of Extinct Flyini; 

 Rf.ptii.es." By H. (i. .Seeley. (.Methuen.) Illustrated. 6s. 

 — Partly, no doubt, owing to the account of their bony struc- 

 ture given in Dean Buckland's will-knowii "Bridgewater Treati.se," 

 Pterodactyles, in common with Ichthyosaurs and Plesiosaurs, 

 are more familiar, at least by name, to non-scientific leaders 

 than are many other groups of extinct creatures. And this 

 circum-stance, together with the remarkable organisation of these 

 reptiles, may be taken to justify the devotion of a work written 

 on somewhat popular line-s to their description and history. By 

 no one have the " Flying Dragons " (as they ought t« be "cilled, 

 were not the name u.surped by an existing lizard) l)een studied 

 with more care and attention than by Professor Seeley, who 

 has devoted some of the best years of hislife to the investigation of 

 their .structure and relationships. In this respect tlie author 

 is probably better qualified than anybody else to tell the public 

 all that is known concerning these .strange reptiles. But tin re 

 is such a thing as an emhnrras des richesses, and the learned 

 professor's store of infomiation with regard to pterodactyles is 

 so great, while his views as to their affinities are so com]ilex, 

 that he has found it difficult Ui express him.self with that sim- 

 jilicity so desirable in all popular works, and it is consequently 

 a matter of some difficulty tfl ascertain the real nature of his 

 views and opinions. 



Unlike both birds and bats, pterodactyles flew by means 

 of a membrane .supported by the .enormously elongated bones of 



the " littlo finger." And this essential difference in structure 

 has induced the belief among the great majority of aimtomists 

 that, in spite of numerous resemblancevs, there is no near alUnity 

 between these reptiles and birds. This, however, is by no 

 means the opinion of the author of the volume before us, who 

 insists that there is some intinuite relationship between the 

 two ; although the precise nature of this is left in great ob- 

 scurity. Neither are the restorations nf the bodily form of 

 the "Dragons of the Air" cimimonly seen in paheoiitological 

 works accepted by tho author, who in this iiwpeet has struck 

 out a line entirely his own, with the result that the creatures, 

 as depicted by his artist, ottVr i-xeilleiit examples of the "scien- 

 tific use of the imagination." Whether they were cajiable of 

 moving about in this posture is a question of which we may bo 

 permitted to have our doubts. 



With I'very inclination t« regard originality of view as of 

 high value, we must confess to a feeling of disappointment with 

 this work if only for the reason llial we cannot understand a 

 large portion. 



" Zooi.oijY. An Elkmkntary Text Book." (Cambridge 

 .Natural Science Manuals.) By A.- K. Shipley and K. W. 

 .MacBride. (Cambridge I'niversity Press.) Illustrated. 10s. 6d. 

 net.-- If we may judge by the number of manuals and textbooks 

 in course of is'sue, for their bi-nefit, the iiumbir of students of 

 zoology must be increasing by "leaps and bnunds" otherwise 

 it woVild apjiarently be a bad" look-out for the publishers. We 

 have, for instance, now in course of i.ssue the "Cambridge 

 N'atural History" (a volume of which was noticed in our last 

 is.sue). Professor Kay Lankester's "Treati.se on Zoology," and 

 the jiresent series — all admirable in their way. 



Unlike the "Cambridge Natural History," in which the two 

 are treated together, the present swies devotes separate volumes 

 to extinct as distinguished from living types; the fossil verte- 

 biates having been already described in a companion volume 

 by ilr. A. Smith Woodward. In our own opinion the former 

 method is decidedly preferable; but this is merely a matter of 

 opinion, and on the lines which the editor has thought fit to 

 adopt the present volume is in the main excellent. 



Even with a dual authorship, it is no light t;isk to write 

 an up-to-date manual of zoology within the conipa.ss of an 

 <irdinary octavo volume, and the authors of the one before us 

 are to be congratulated on the general success of their efforts. 



As stated in the preface, the treatment is by no_ means 

 equal throughout, the lower types, which come first in 

 the volume, being described in a more elementary manner than 

 those which follow. The reason of this is obvious. The leader 

 is presumed to have no previous acquaintance with zoology, 

 and he is accordingly introduced t<i his subject absolutely de novo. 

 When he has proceeded some way in the liook he is .supposed to 

 have assimilat<'il the information contained in the earlier chapters, 

 and his iiLstruction accordingly proceeds by comparison with what 

 he has learnt. 



Great prominence is given to the do<!trine of the "cielom"; 

 the majority of animal groups being classified as Codoiriata or 

 otherwi.se. We must, however, find fauh. with the ariangement 

 of the table of contents, in which no clue is given to the fact 

 that the last four "phyla" do not belong to the Coelomata. 

 In respect of these bust four groups the classification is a 

 novelty so far as English text-books are concerned. Apart from 

 the Protozoa, Coelenterata, and Porifera, which come first in 

 the series, the authors trace a gradual ascent from the worms to 

 man ; all these forms (exhibiting more or less clearly, in (me 

 stage or other, the J)l•eseIlcl^ of the codom. When, however, 

 \W flat-worms (Platyhelminthes) are reached, the authors state 

 that lliey come to "four groups in which the presence of the 

 codom cannot be definitely determined ; and we accordingly find 

 the Platyhelminthes, Neniertinea, Hotifera, and Nematoda placed, 

 so to s'peak, above man. Although the arrangement appears 

 ))eculiar, we are by no means prepared to say that it may not 

 be defensible. 



Having said that it is difficult for even two authors to write 

 a comprehensive zoological treatise, we do not intend to presume 

 that a single reviewer can criticize the whole. Our few critical 

 remarks will, therefore, apply to one section. As regards birds, 

 we notice that th(! aufliors refuse to regard the Tinamous us Halitie. 

 In the iiaragrajihs on Marsupial Mammals we think the work is 

 scarcely up to-date as regards the dentition and the origin of 

 the gi"oup from an arboreal tvpe. And there are many jioints 

 of detail in regard to the treatment of the mammalia generally 

 which afford opportunity for criticism. For instance, the state- 

 ment that the ancestors of the Llamas originated in the Old 

 World is opposed to American palajontological evidence; while 

 a visit to the Natural Museum would serve to show that the 

 statement as to the Giratt'e being " confined t<J the gras.sy plains 

 of the interior of Africa" is scarcely consonant with the real 

 facts. Exception might also be taken to the statement that 



