; Fune 11, 1885 | NATURE 
123 
from the statements made on p. 27 he would never infer 
that the common Anodon shell is destitute of teeth. The 
Argonauta, although somewhat less commonplace than 
the aforenamed, is to be found in our museums, and no 
mention is made in this volume of the exceptional 
characters of its shell—in fact, the beginner would rather 
infer from the descriptions given that it is a normal 
Cephalopod shell. Less pardonable are the inadequate 
remarks devoted to the rest of the Cephalopod group, 
which are especially unfortunate in their reference to 
connecting-links with the extinct forms. The anomalous 
but characteristic Aptychi go without a mention. 
Viewed in the light of Prof. Moseley’s recent dis- 
coveries, the reasons adduced on p. 44 for the absence of 
the cerebral ganglia in Chiton are of some interest, as a 
caution against making too sweeping generalisations. 
Under the head of Molluscoidea there is a bare men- 
tion of the genus Rhabdopleura, and we are at aloss to 
conceive why the reference to this important form printed 
in the original index should have been omitted in the 
translation. 
Turning now to that portion of the work which fol- 
lows, the fact that but 231 pages are devoted to the Ver- 
tebrata, exclusive of Tunicates, is sufficient in itself to 
raise suspicion, especially when we reflect that 115 pages 
of Vol. I. are given up to Tracheates alone. When 
Mr. Sedgwick published the first volume of this work it 
was patent to any one familiar with the original that 
nothing short of a complete revision of the Vertebrate 
section could justify that claim set up by him in his trans- 
lator’s preface. Having admitted his willingness to 
supplement the original where he “thought it necessary” 
—thereby, we presume, countenancing the weakness of 
the volume now before us—it is surprising to find how 
little he has carried that resolve into execution, the more 
so as he acknowledges the assistance and advice of others, 
some of whom are authorities. That this defect is not 
due to any want of intention on the translator’s part is 
clear from insertions such as that on p. 167 ; but we look 
in vain for dozens of other similar modifications, con- 
nected with matters of infinitely greater importance than 
that just referred to. Similarly, why should the recent 
discovery of the meroblastic segmentation of the Mono- 
treme’s egg be inserted by the translators and referred to 
some two or three times when there is no mention what- 
ever of the far more weighty characters of the skull of 
that group? Even were defects such as the above-named 
rectified, the book would still remain wholly insufficient 
and incompetent. The exclusive use of the old classifica- 
tion of birds—the dogmatic statements made concerning 
many of the most involved fields of Vertebrate morpho- 
logy ; for example, that of the auditory ossicles, where 
Reichert’s views are alone given—the entire omission of 
any description of such a characteristic structure as the 
lizard’s hind-limb and ankle-joint—the feeble and con- 
fused descriptions of the vertebrate skull, obvious through- 
out the entire work and ushered in on p. 118 by the bar- 
barous “ os /inguale” and “ copule” —the ambiguous state- 
ments made on p. 124concerning the vertebrate diaphragm, 
which still (p. 250) finds its place among the respiratory 
organs of birds, are, to say nothing of other similar de- 
fects, sufficient in themselves to stamp the vertebrate 
portion of the Text-book as little short of a failure. 
i 
That that section of the work falls short of the needs 
of the English-speaking student is certain, especially 
as it is so far behind other manuals current in the 
tongue. Errors, the bare enumeration of which would be 
superfluous, are predominant on all hands, and the reten- 
tion of the “ Cetacea Carnivora” and “ Cetacea Herbivora 
or Sirenia ” (séc) of the ancients, is, leaving the Hydrosauria 
with its sub-classes aside, certainly not creditable to any 
one concerned. We heartily recommend the invertebrate 
portion of the work to the student. He may find that 
which follows useful, but he need be no specialist to see 
that it is insufficient on all points, and absolutely 
inaccurate and misleading on many of vital importance. 
It but remains to enumerate certain of the more con- 
spicuous defects, respecting which at least, should a 
second edition of the work be demanded, it is to be 
hoped that the translators will see fit to effect an 
alteration. 
The cumbrous and fanciful method of accounting (p. 113) 
for the characters of the thoracic region of the vertebrate 
body is to be regretted, leading the beginner, as it does 
to suppose this to be the most modified region of the 
trunk—a conception the precise reverse of that which the 
properly-trained student will soon form for himself. The 
exclusion of the teeth from the list (p. 119) of dermal 
derivatives and the complete confusion between scutes and 
scales evident throughout, are but slight faults compared 
with such as we have already enumerated. Qn p. 127 we 
are introduced to a thorough mixing up of the urinary 
receptacle of fishes with the allantoic bladder of Amniotes 
—a serious error, and one which the translator ought to 
have been expected to rectify. 
The above remarks apply more especially to the 
general part of the vertebrate section of the work; but, 
on passing to that treating of the special groups, we find 
a general feebleness nowhere more evident than in that 
portion devoted to fishes. The diagnoses of that group are 
meagre in the extreme, and descriptions of even their 
tails such as are given on p. 164 are wanting in accuracy. 
No wonder, then, that the “jugular” pelvic fin should be 
once more to the front, that there is a disregard of cha- 
racters so important as are those of the maxillary appa- 
ratus of Teleostei, and that such genera as Albula, 
Cheirocentrus, Megalops, &c., go unnoticed. The treat- 
ment of the Sauropsida is no less unfortunate than the 
above. Reference has already been made to some of the 
more conspicuous defects of this section, barely less 
pardonable than which are the bad descriptions of the 
bird’s manus (p. 237) and the bare mention of the struc- 
ture of the avian lung. 
We are told on p. 243 that birds possess a rudimentary 
“ corpus callosum,” no mention being made of that tract 
which may probably answer to it in Amphibia. The 
treatment of the Sauropsidian pelvis and of the bird’s 
shoulder-girdle are miserably poor, and the student is 
informed on p. 194that Crocodiles possess an “ abdominal 
sternum,” which is “composed of a number of ventral 
ribs (without dorsal part)” ; he will learn a valuable lesson 
who—Prof. Claus’s manual in hand—discovers for himself 
that the ventral sternal ribs and these abdominal splints 
coexist in Hatteria, skeletons of which are now to be 
found in our museums. Considering the above facts, it 
| is not surprising that nearly all reference to important 
