Reviews — Dr. A. Salee — The Genus Caninia. 321 



Tournai, which he has used as a basis for his revision. The accom- 

 panying plates are first-rate, the suite of five serial sections being very 

 satisfactory. Sound reasons are given for regarding de Koninck's 

 Zaphrentis herculina as a variety of M'Coy's species, as here 

 understood. 



Michelin's Caninia patula is revised from topotypes, and is treated 

 very fully. On pis. vi-viii, there are five sets of serial sections, 

 in one of which ten sections are figured (this specimen actually 

 yielded forty sections). In addition two vertical sections are given, 

 so that one obtains a very complete idea of M. Salee's conception 

 of the species. In this case there can be no hesitation in accepting 

 the revision. Michelin's type is preserved in the Musee d'Histoire 

 jNaturelle at Paris, where it had lain unrecognized for many years ; 

 in my experience, topotypes which are externally identical with this 

 specimen give sections that agree entirely with M. Salee's figures and 

 description. 



Important additions are made to the synonymy of the three species, 

 and two new varieties, densa and vesicularis, are associated with 

 Caninia patula and C. cornucopia respectively. 



The monograph closes with some remarks on the phylogeny of the 

 genus, of which the ancestor is taken to be a Zaphrentis and the 

 descendant a Cyathopliyllum. Such an idea can only be regarded as 

 tentative. It must be admitted that none of the species of Caninia 

 can be shown to have descended from any Carboniferous species of 

 Zaphrentis yet known. M. Salee justly considers that Cyathopliyllum 

 must be regarded as a polyphyletic genus, although it is very probable 

 that it will eventually be possible to demonstrate that some of the 

 Yisean species were derived from Caninia patula. 



The weak spot of the revision lies in the question of nomenclature 

 between Caninia cylinclrica and C. giyantea. If it can be said that 

 Michelin's type is lost and that similar material from Tournai varies 

 too much to be used as a basis for redescription, while topotypes of 

 M'Coy's species are constant in character and agree with M. Salee's 

 account of his Tournai material, then the revision can be accepted as 

 a most satisfactory piece of work. But in the meantime the question 

 remains an open one. 



There are many interesting observations on ontogeny, and the mode 

 of development of dissepiments is noted with care ; some contribution 

 is also made towards the solution of the very puzzling problem arising 

 from the deposit of stereoplasma round the septa of many Palaeozoic 

 corals, especially in those of the Caninia group. The septa, which are 

 of necessity bilamellar in all Anthozoa, are, however, erroneously 

 considered to be unilamellar. 



Typographical errors are chiefly apparent in the Bibliography. 



These facts apart, the work is of much value. The lavish 

 illustrations, mostly from serial sections, are especially useful in 

 bringing out the specific constants in fossils of so variable a nature, 

 and it is to be hoped that M. Salee will be enabled to continue his 

 work on similar lines. 



R. G. C. 



DECADE V. — VOL. VIII. — NO. VII. 21 



