280 
NATURE 
SMe OSA ane ee a 
$ (eS ee 
eu” 
[Feb : 3 * 1873) aa ; 
With this admirable material, and, what is no less 
important, with the philosophical spirit which a mere 
specialist always lacks, it is no wonder that a work of the 
first importance has been produced. 
The first chapter gives an appreciative account of the 
admirable labours of Prof. Grant, and of the subsequent 
contributions to the subject by Johnston, Bowerbank, 
Lieberkiihn, Carter, Oscar Schmidt, and Ko6lliker. The 
defects of Mr. Bowerbank’s “Monograph of British 
*Sponges” are clearly pointed out, but its great merits 
receive equally cordial recognition, while the criticism 
passed on Dr. Gray’s “ Classification” is as just as it is 
severe. 
After a description of the methods of examination, the 
author proceeds to give a detailed account of the anatomy 
and natural history of the calcareous sponges, and this 
occupies the greater part of the first volume. The 
second is devoted to a detailed description of the whole 
group in systematic order, with diagnosis of species 
and ample synonomy. The plates in the third volume, 
drawn by Prof. Hickel with the camera lucida, are 
admirably exact, though artistic effect is sometimes sacri- 
ficed to a somewhat diagrammatic clearness. They 
remind one of the excellent illustrations of Bronn’s 
“ Thierreich.” 
The class of sponges is divided into Fibrospongie, in- 
cluding most of Grant’s and Bowerbank’s siliceous and 
ceratose genera, JZyvospongi, represented by Halisarca 
and Calcispongie vel Grantie. This third class con- 
tains three families, Ascones (Leucosolenia Bowerbank), 
Leucones (Leuconia Bowerbank), and Sycones (Grantia 
Bowerbank), represented by Ascetta, Leucetta and Sycetta 
respectively. The genera are chiefly characterised by 
their spicula. 
The author agrees with Oscar Schmidt in deducing all 
known sponges from a single primitive form (Archi- 
spongia, Protospongia), which he supposed to have re- 
sembled Hadésarca more than any other existing genus. 
He regards the class as very distinct from the Protozoa, 
and most nearly related to the Coelenterata, a view with 
which English readers are familiar from Mr. E. R. Lan- 
kester’s interesting paper on Zoological Affinities of 
Sponges in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History 
(vol. vi. 1870). Indeed it was the position taken by 
Leuchart himself in 1854, seven years after the sub-king- 
dom of Coelenterata had been established by himself and 
Frey. If we admit that each sponge-pyramid is not a 
colony of Protozoa, but a multicellular organism, its likeness 
to a polyp is very striking: the chief differences are the 
absence of tentacles and of thread-cells. The latter struc- 
tures, however, have, we believe, been detected in some 
Mediterranean sponges since the publication of Prof. 
Hiickel’s work. 
Comparing the “ Stammbaum” given at the end of the 
first volume with that in the third edition of the “ Schépf- 
ungsgeschichte” (1872), published five months earlier, we 
find that the author now makes all sponges descend 
through “ Archispongia,” and “ Protascus” from an 
equally hypothetical ‘ Gastreea,” while the Ccelenterata 
diverge from Protascus as Archydra. This makes the 
affinity less close between Myxospongiz on the one 
hand, and between Calcispongize and Coralligena on the 
other, The modification brings the Stammbaum nearer 
to the classifications actually used by other zoologists 
and is so far an advantage, ; 
With regard to nomenclature, Prof. Hiickel defends 
the proposal which he made in 1869 to revive the old 
name of Zoophyta (used by our countryman Wotton in 
1552) in order to include sponges (or Porifera) and Cce- 
lenterata (or, as he prefers to call them, Acalephz). Ad- 
mitting the justice of the classification, there seems no 
sufficient justification for the change of names. 1. Priority 
belongs to the name given by those who first establish 
true affinities, and not to vague and fanciful names given 
two hundred years before Linnzeus. 2. To say ‘Zoo- 
phyta” is no worse a name to revive than “ Vermes” is 
sufficiently to condemn it. 3. Whether the cavity in a 
sea-anemone is all stomach or partly perivisceral may 
admit of dispute, but “Coelenterata” only affirms that the 
animal is hollow; and if the term suggests either interpre- 
tation, it rather lends itself to Prof. Hackel’s. 4. If another 
word must be invented to apply to Anthozoa (or “ Coralla ”) 
and Hydrozoa (or “ Hydromedusze”) in common, Huxley's 
“ Nematophora,” suggested in 1851, is just as good as 
“ Acalephe,” which was used in a more restricted sense 
by Cuvier. But it is not impossible that before long 
neither term will be properly exclusive of sponges. 
These perpetual changes of names and invention of 
fresh ones to fit kinsfolk of every shade of propinquity 
and even avowedly mytholozical ancestors, is a real draw- 
back to the value of such excellent works as this, and is 
aimost as bad as the endless nomenclature of the species- 
mongers with whom Prof. Hackel is so justly indignant. 
However the new wine is still working, and we may say 
of even “endless genealogies ”— 
** Doch sind wir auch mit diesen nicht gefahrdet, 
In wenig Jahren wird es anders sein : 
Wenn sich der Most auch ganz absurd geberdet, 
Es gibt zuletzt dech noch ’nen Wein.” 
And this book will remain an important contribution to 
philosophical zoology, no less than to the special history 
of the group to which it is devoted. Poss 
OUR BOOK SHELF 
Grotesque Animals. Invented, Drawn, and. Described 
by E. W. Cooke, RA. F.R.S., F-GS., FP. ZiGieecc. 
(London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1872.) 
Mr. E. W. COOKE possesses so high a reputation, not 
only as one of the leading artists of the day, but also as 
a man eminently devoted to science, as evidenced by 
the fact of his having attained the double distinction 
of Royal Academician and Fellow of the Royal Society, 
that anything proceeding from his pencil cannot fail to 
be worthy of notice, and we have accordingly looked 
through this quaint collection of facsimile drawings with 
very great interest. Mr, Cooke states, in his preface, that 
he commenced this series of “ grotesque combinations,” 
to which he also assigns the euphonious title of “ Ent- 
wickelungsgeschicte” (history of development), while 
secking rest and relief on the Somersetshire Coast after 
the dissipation attendant upon the meeting of the British 
Association at Manchester, in 1864, and that the idea of 
publication was forced upon him by friends who wished 
to have copies of the drawings. We are not surprised at 
his numerous friends and admirers desiring that these 
results of his holiday recreations should be given to the 
world ; for, apart from the merits of the drawings in an 
artistic point of view, containing, as they do, powerful 
delineations of animal forms, they exhibit a singular and 
eae 
