June 5, 1890] 



NATURE 



123 



but since the former deals with the Vertebrates of one 

 particular epoch, while some of the latter include only 

 \ such of the British fossil Vertebrates as are represented 

 in the National Collection, they in no way cover the 

 ground occupied by the present work. 



It is, of course, needless to say that the work before us 

 is essentially a technical one, and therefore appeals only 

 to students of this particular branch of science, or to 

 those stratigraphical geologists to whom it is important to 

 know the correct horizon, locahties, and nomenclature 

 of the fossil Vertebrates of the British strata. So far as 

 completeness and accuracy are concerned, the work is 

 beyond criticism ; but we trust we shall not be accused 

 of any carping spirit if we venture in the course of our 

 notice to indicate a few points in which, according to our 

 judgment, it might be improved. 



The greater part of the introduction is occupied by an 

 entirely new and very valuable history of the chief col- 

 lectors and collections of the fossil Vertebrate remains 

 found in the British Isles. Then we have a careful ex- 

 planation of the general plan of the work ; followed by 

 some judicious remarks as to the harm that has been 

 done to the science by the publication of a host of un- 

 defined names. When, however, the authors hold " a 

 single University Museum " " responsible for no less 

 than seventy meaningless terms," we venture to think 

 that the individual or individuals by whom such names 

 were proposed should i-ather have been held responsible 

 for the same. Following the introduction, a table (for 

 which the authors are indebted to Mr. W. H. Brown) of 

 the dates of publication of the fasciculi of Agassiz's 

 " Recherches sur les Poissons fossiles " will be found of 

 especial value, as fixing the date of many genera of fossil 

 fishes. Scarcely less valuable is the determination of the 

 respective dates of appearance of the three parts in 

 which Sir R. Owen's well-known " Odontography" was 

 originally issued. 



In the table of the stratigraphical distribution of British 

 fossil Vertebrate genera, which concludes the prefatory 

 portion of the volume, we must take exception to the 

 very insignificant deposit known as the " Forest-bed " 

 being allowed to take rank as the Forest Bed Series^ as 

 though it were of equal importance with the Pliocene 

 and Pleistocene ; under one of which it should have been 

 included as the Forest-bed Stage. 



In regard to the plan of the work itself, the various 

 genera and species are arranged alphabetically under the 

 classes to which they respectively belong — a mode of 

 arrangement in which the authors follow the Morrisian 

 Catalogue. They depart, however, from the latter in not 

 mentioning the order to which each genus is commonly 

 referred. Here, we think, the innovation is not an im- 

 provement, since in the case of stratigraphical geologists, 

 who may have occasion to consult the work, it would 

 often be an advantage to know at once to what large 

 group any particular genus belongs ; and even a student 

 of one particular class of Vertebrates may well be at a loss 

 to know the ordinal position of a genus belonging to 

 another class with which he is leis intimately ac- 

 quainted. 



It also strikes us that it would have been advisable to 

 state the authority for regarding various genera and spe- 

 cies as synonyms of others ; for, as it stands at present, 

 NO. 1075, VOL. 42] 



there is no evidence to show whether such references are 

 made for the first time on the authority of the authors 

 themselves, or whether others are responsible. Thus, 

 under the head of Hyracotherium leporinuin (p. 356) we 

 find Pliolophus vulpiceps given as a synonym, without 

 any guide to the authority for such reference. In this 

 particular instance we believe the identification of Plio- 

 lophus with Hyracotherium was first made \y Prof. 

 W. H. Flower in his article " Mammalia," published 

 in 1882 in the latest edition of the "Encyclopaedia 

 Britannica," and some reference to this should have been 

 made. 



On the whole, the authors appear, to hav^ exercised a 

 wise discretion in not amending for the first time the 

 spelling of such generic and specific names as are obviously 

 incorrect according to a true Latinized orthography. We 

 cannot, however, follow them in their refusal to accept 

 emendations which have already been published in other 

 works, more especially as they are not consistent in either 

 adopting or rejecting such emendations. Thus, for in- 

 stance, they adopt the name Machcerodus (p. 366) as 

 amended from the original Machairodus ; but they refuse 

 to accept ^Flurus in place of Ailurus (p. 311), although 

 the amended name has been put)lished more than once.^ 

 Again, they retain Leiodon (p. 245) and Platecarpus (p. 

 264), although the amended Liodon and Platycarpus have 

 been published — the latter, we admit, but recently. The 

 authors seem, indeed, to have a rooted objection to the 

 transliteration of the Greek et into the Latin i (as may be 

 noticed in the root Cheir instead of Chir under the head 

 of Pisces) ; but this transliteration, as every student of 

 our Greek Testament knows, is just as binding as that of 

 at into a, or ov into u, and if the one change is rejected 

 the others ought not to be adopted. 



As a rule, the authors have paid attention to the gender 

 of generic names, which is too often neglected. They 

 regard compound generic names as substantives, and, 

 therefore, bring the gender of the specific name into 

 accord with that of the terminal portion of the generic 

 one. They state, however, on p. 395, that they have not 

 followed this rule in regard to names ending in lepis, 

 where they have allowed the specific names to remain 

 with the masculine termination. They appear to have 

 adopted the same course with regard to the termination 

 batis {Aetobatis, p. 9) ; but in the case of (a:j;^/j- the authors 

 seem to have been unable to make up their minds, since 

 on p. 79 we find Eukeraspis pustuliferus, while on p. 

 129 we have Odontaspis cuspidata. 



As features of especial value in the work before us, we 

 may notice that in every instance where it can be ascer- 

 tained the place of preservation of the type specimens is 

 indicated ; while all the recorded localities are given 

 under the head of the various species. 



The compilation of a work like the present is a labour 

 which only those who have had the misfortune to try it 

 can fully comprehend, and the thanks of every student 

 are therefore due to Messrs. Woodward and Sherbornfor 

 the production of a book which is absolutely indispensable 

 to all those who are engaged in the pursuit of this branch 

 of palaeontology. 



R. L. 



' See Flower, Proc. Zool. Soc., 1870, p. 752 ; and B'anford, " Fauna of 

 British India— Mammalia," p. 189 (1888). 



