208 Miscellaneous. 



The author, too, appears to hold views as to tlio fixity of 

 mammalian species which are not generally shared, as he speaks 

 more than once of species now living which crossed into this or that 

 area during Miocene times. Yet it is surely generally conceded 

 that no existing species extended so far back in time. 



Instances of this kind could be multiplied, but we feel that it 

 would savour too much of ingratitude to dwell on the blemishes of 

 these pages; for, despite of them, Dr. Scharifs book is one that 

 all must read, and all will find of very real value, inasmuch as 

 it embraces within its scope Invertebrates as well as Vertebrates, 

 and not a few of the more interesting plants. Moreover, the pages 

 of the work are copiously illustrated. Maps are plentifully dis- 

 tributed, and each map has an " inset " figure of the animal to 

 which it refers. If the defects to which we have referred are 

 made good in a second edition, which in all probability will be 

 demanded, tliis book will form one of the most admirable treatises 

 on the subject which has ever appeared. W. P. P. 



MISCELLANEOUS. 



The Name Archseocidaris. By J. W. Gregoky. 



In the Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist, for November 1907, Dr. Bather advo- 

 cates the substitution of the name EcJiinocnnus for the well-known 

 and appropriate name Archceocidaris. This change seems unneces- 

 sary, and it will probably be admitted by all students of Echino- 

 derms as undesirable unless absolutely necessary. The name 

 Echinocriyius is misleading, as it is admitted that it was given by 

 Agassiz under the mistaken idea that the fossils which he thus 

 named were crinoids. No one would take the responsibility of 

 overthrowing a well-established name because it happens to assert 

 a wrong affinity for the genus ; but when a truthful name has been 

 well established, it is deplorable to resuscitate a misleading term 

 from which we have been saved by the common-sense of an earlier 

 geueration. 



In this case there is a sound excuse for allowing the discarded 

 name to remain buried, owing to its close resemblance to the earlier 

 Echinoencrinus. Archceocidaris is probably more common in the 

 Carboniferous rocks of the west of Scotland than in any other part 

 of the British Isles, and the name is therefore especially well known 

 among Scotch palaeontologists. Professor Bell (in the ' Annals ' 

 for 1891, ser. 6, vol. viii. pp. 106-9) showed that, according to the 

 strict rules of priority. Actinia is the name of a Holothurian and 

 that Holotlmria is an Ascidian. That fact was pointed out sixteen 

 years ago, but the old use of the names continues in defiance of the 

 rules. Until these changes are accepted I hope palseontologists 

 will retain the name Archceocidaris. 



University, C41asgow. 



