March 10, 1870 | 
NALURE 
479 
by the independent researches of Dr, Carpenter and his 
colleagues in this country, is surely strong evidence in its 
favour ; and the fact of its having been used in the latest 
publications on the particular subject of the work, gave it a 
strong claim for introduction, in spite of the alleged pos- 
sibility of subsequent modification. 
The author further laments the imperfection caused by 
his omission of specific or trivial names. In the prospect 
of a new and better classification, with the possible em- 
ployment of different criteria for the separation of genera 
and species, every new specific name would, he thinks, 
only serve to increase the present confusion in nomen- 
clature, and to augment the difficulties of future observers ; 
besides, hints the author shrewdly, “ thereby I have spared 
to myself a notable piece of labour.” So the honour of 
appending specific names is willingly bequeathed to the 
future systematist who shall investigate the new forms, 
and who, we agree with Herr von Schlicht, will not be 
overpaid for his trouble. 
Thus we are warned at the outset that, so far as nomen- 
clature is concerned, no advantage is taken of the mass 
of plates which occupies half the volume. And _ yet, 
oddly enough, the author does name ove of his figures— 
an attenuated, slightly curved, costate Nodosarian, with 
broad, clear, somewhat irregular sutures and pointed ends. 
This he calls Dentalina edelina n.s.,a name that might 
very well have been spared. 
Notwithstanding the absence of trivial names, genera 
are recognised, and detailed descriptions are given of the 
specimens figured, with references to the plates. Thirty- 
two genera are adopted (two of them new), and xumders 
from 1 to 556, are appended to the descriptions instead of 
mimes. Some of the old generic terms employed are 
already regarded as untenable by those who had been in 
the habit of using them, and the two new ones are cer- 
tainly needless. One of them, “A¢ractolina,” represents 
a mixed lot of forms, some of them possibly compact 
fusiform Polymorphing, the remainder doubtful Modo- 
saving. In the case of two generic types which inosculate 
in their feebler varieties, as these most certainly do, we are 
ready to admit the difficulty of determining to which group 
a number of the intermediate forms belong ; but to make 
a fresh sub-division for them cuts the knot rather than 
unties it. The other new genus, “Ros¢rodina,’ has no 
better foundation, based as it is on the mere shape of 
the terminal orifice—a straight or curved slit in the 
mucronate terminal chamber, instead of the circular or 
radiate aperture usually found. Specimens with this 
peculiarity have long been known, but have been re- 
garded as mere individual modifications, and no previous 
writer has thought it necessary to invent even a specific 
name for them. 
A good deal of criticism might be expended on the 
subdivisions and their arrangement, but we content our- 
selves with the passing remark that Reuss’s type Chilos- 
zomella is out of place amongst the Polymorphinide, and 
that Bol’vina is far separated by the author from 
Bulimina, which is its nearest ally. 
We may sum up in a few sentences. Notwithstanding 
the work falls far short of what it might have been in many 
important particulars, it is of considerable value. The 
omission of any attempt to simplify the nomenclature, 
with the opportunity the large number of.plates offered for 
doing so excellent a service, is inexcusable. It may be 
doubted whether a single new specific name would have 
been needed, and the plates might have been made the 
basis of a large reduction in those already in use. The 
best point of all about the book is the completeness of 
many of the series represented,—the consecutive links in 
the chain between a number of reputed species being in 
many cases all figured. It more than once occurred to 
us in turning over the plates, there must be something 
of dry humour about an author who could suggest that 
anyone who named the new forms would deserve all the 
honour he could get out of them, and that the fasciculus 
of plates was intended to demonstrate that the system of 
species-splitting could not be carried further than it had 
been carried by some previous authors, short of naming 
every specimen. On the other hand, from the large 
number of drawings devoted to the illustration of the 
minute morphological variations of a few simple types, 
the work affords valuable testimony to the truth of the 
views enunciated by Mr. W, K. Parker in his earliest 
paper on the Miliolitidee of the Indian Seas, as to the im- 
possibility of sub-dividing these lowest classes of animals 
by hard lines corresponding to the specific limits of more 
highly organised creatures ; that a long series of forms 
presenting an extraordinary range of morphological varia- 
tion may be grouped round sub-types, several of which 
merging at their edges into each other, and without any 
perceptible lines of demarcation between them, find in 
their turn a common central type, and that this type more 
nearly than any minor division represents what we are 
accustomed to term a species. If we regard Herr von 
Schlicht’s volume from this point of view, we may easily 
see how it may possess considerable value, though not 
exactly of the sort that was intended by its author. 
We should just add, that though the paper and letter- 
press are excellent, the plates are scarcely equal in solidity 
and clearness to the lithographic work we have been accus- 
tomed to see in German memoirs on the Foraminifera. 
H. B. BRaby 
ENCKE THE ASTRONOMER 
Fohann Franz Encke: 
Dr. C. Bruhns. 
and Norgate.) 
FOuR years have passed since Encke died. Even those 
four years have witnessed notable changes in the aspect 
of the science he loved so well. But we must look back 
over more than fifty years if we would form an estimate of 
the position of astronomy when Encke’s most notable 
work was achieved. At Seeberge under Lindenau, Encke 
had been perfecting himself in the higher branches of 
mathematical calculation. He took the difficult work of 
determining the orbital motions of newly discovered 
comets under his special charge, and Dr. Bruhns tells us 
that every comet which was detected during Encke’s stay 
at Seeberge was subjected to rigid scrutiny by the 
indefatigable mathematician. Before long a discovery of 
the utmost importance rewarded his persevering labours. 
Pons had detected on November 26, 1818, a comet of 
no very brilliant aspect, which was watched first at 
Marseilles,and then at Mannheim, until the 29th December. 
Encke next took up the work and tracked the comet until 
January 12. Combining the observations made between 
sein Leben und Wirken. Von. 
(Leipzig, 1869. London: Williams 
