Reviews — Nicholson and Lydekkers Palaeontology. 129 



Wales," Holaspis having been discovered in Monmouthshire ; and 

 Didymaspis is not Silurian, but Devonian. It is correctly stated that 

 Scaphaspis has proved to be the ventral shield of Pteraspis ; never- 

 theless, Lankester's erroneous figure with the mouth in the middle 

 of the truly armoured abdominal region still survives. It would 

 perplex any one but a specialist to comprehend the old figure of 

 Cyathaspis ; and the anal fin is even yet retained in the restoration 

 of Coccosteus, notwithstanding M'Coy's assertion, thirty years ago, 

 that such a feature did not exist in the numerous specimens he had 

 examined, and that Agassiz's determination of its presence was 

 doubtless founded on a mistake. It was excusable fifty years ago 

 to make use of a Teleostean head to impart a life-like form to the 

 dilapidated trunk of a Devonian Ganoid ; but the progress of 

 research ought, by this time, to have exterminated so fundamental 

 an error. We are thus astonished to find Agassiz's restoration of 

 Dipterus once more repeated (fig. 907), and, not only so, but now 

 labelled Thursins macrolepidotus, through an unfortunate misunder- 

 standing of recent researches. Huxley's restorations of Ccelacanths, 

 with their broom-like dorsal fins, still persist, in spite of von Zittel's 

 beautiful engraving of Undina ; and a beginner might well be 

 excused for failing to recognize a Sturgeon from the old caricature 

 on p. 975. Most of the other figures of Ganoids, however, are 

 satisfactorily up to date ; the only serious inaccuracy occurring in 

 Agassiz's restoration of Aspidorhynchus, where the rostrum, as well 

 as the upper jaw, is shown to be provided with teeth. 



In the arrangement of the Teleostei, Dr. Gunther's classification 

 is adopted ; and the only important additions to the scheme occur in 

 the section upon the Cretaceous forms. The provisional groups 

 from the Chalk, distinguished by Smith Woodward, are named and 

 regarded as families of Physostomi ; and most of the genera are 

 treated in accordance with the determinations of the same author. 

 The enumeration of the extinct representatives of the later families 

 will prove useful for reference, though somewhat uninteresting 

 reading; and the majority of the illustrations are both artistic and 

 accurate. The usual bibliography follows, with references to most 

 of the principal works and memoirs; but we venture to suggest that 

 the omission to record any of Egerton's contributions to the subject 

 beyond a single brief technical note of limited interest, is scarcely 

 doing justice to one of England's foremost palaeontologists. 



As may naturally be supposed, the chapter devoted to the Am- 

 phibia is chiefly concerned with a discussion of the Labyrinthodonts. 

 These form an order, subdivided (after Anton Fritsch) into " four 

 series or suborders, according to the external contour of the body 

 and the nature of the vertebral column." The Bohemian Branchio- 

 saurtis is regarded as identical with the French Protriton ; Platyceps, 

 from the Australian Hawkesbury Beds, is said to be probably the 

 same as Bothriceps, also Australian ; and the South African genus, 

 Rhytidosteus, is provisionally arranged with the Archegosaurida?. 

 Eosatirns is degraded from its Reptilian rank held in the last edition 

 of the work, and now rightly appears as a Labyriuthodont incerlce 



DECADE III. VOL. VII. — ISO. III. 9 



