100 Buibliographical Notice. 
hard to improve the orthography of the paleontologists; and he 
well observes that the unfamiliarity of many with Latin and Greek, 
the carelessness of some who know better, and the misprints in press 
have been, and still are, powerful agents in making and keeping 
errors in scientific nomenclature. In some of the classes of fossils 
Mr. Miller found 25 per cent. of the names defective. False con- 
cord between the generic and specific words is the most frequent 
source of error, on account of the worker’s ignorance of Latin ; and, 
even if the original name be correctly rendered, a subsequent writer 
often alters the genus and does not adapt the trivial name to the 
gender of the new generic word. As Mr. Claypole had not the 
opportunity of seeing all the sheets of the catalogue whilst going 
through the press, he has carefully formed an accurate Index of the 
Paleozoic genera (pp. 247-253) as to their genders—a great boon to 
many non-classical writers. Phlegethontia, however, is set as masc. 
instead of fem., probably by misprint; and we think that the 
Latinized form Macrocheilus might pass as masc., although the Greek 
Macrocheilos would be neuter, and should be used instead of the 
former if the latter gender be desirable. So also Temnochetlus. 
The use of diphthongs is attended to more carefully in this than in 
some other paleontological works ; but Leptena (at page 7), pygmea 
(p. 59), hemisphericus (pp. 44, 1387, and 244), meandrina (p. 56), 
and Phillipastrea (p. 251) are wrong, for want of the diphthong. 
This is dropped by some French writers, who then make the single 
letter strong with an accent in their own language, and unfortu- 
nately ignore the diphthong in the Latin. 
Both French and German titles are badly quoted at pages 48, 56, 
95, 193, 219, and at pp. 166, 209, 215, 220, &. Hence a wider 
knowledge of these modern tongues is evidently desirable. 
There are many slips in the etymology of names, which may be 
advantageously corrected in the next issue of the “ Catalogue.” 
Thus Aristides is surely historical, and not “mythological” (p. 166). 
It must be wmbel-bearing and not “umbrella-bearing” that is 
intended at page 60; amphi (p. 209) means “around” or ‘on 
both sides,” and not “doubtful.” ‘“Lithofactor” and “petrifactor ” 
are meant for makers of and not ‘made of” stone (p. 212); and 
Favosites has less to do with any “ proper name” (p. 244) than 
with favus, a honeycomb. Some etymologies are stretched, as 
“insignificant,” instead of ‘ useless,” for inutilis (p. 130); secwris, 
‘‘axe-shaped,” instead of “axe”; sigillate, not ‘sealed,’ but 
‘adorned with figures” (p. 212); and why should regularis mean 
“‘formed in bars” ? 
These slips and misprints constitute, however, but very slight 
drawbacks in the profitable use of this excellent, well-considered 
book by those wishing to refer to it as a trustworthy epitome of 
Paleozoic fossils; and the student will here find very much to help 
him in recognizing the value and estimating the right form and 
status of their scientific names. The hard pedantry, however 
(adopted by others besides the author of this work), of denying 
initial capitals to all specific names, whether nouns, proper names, 
or adjectives of the latter, takes away many a good and useful sign 
FS 
