REVIEWS 675 
In accordance with these principles his specific discriminations are very 
close. This is a thing to be desired provided it is taken into account that 
mere difference of species is of much less significance than when broader 
definitions are used. The closer the specific discriminations are drawn 
the closer the relationship of distinct species may be. This fact should be 
taken duly into account in making wide correlations of faunas. 
In working out these relationships and correlations eight pages are 
devoted to the enumeration and citation of foreign literature on the Anthra- 
colitic faunas of the world, with brief sentences as to their relationships 
to the fauna described. About ten pages are devoted to the discussion of 
the relationships of the Guadalupian, Kansan, and Russian faunas. 
With regard to the foreign faunas he states: 
In all these faunas there is none, I’regret to say, with which the Guadalupian 
can really be considered to be closely allied. The nearest are probably the Salt 
Range and Himalaya, in India, and the Fusulina limestone of Palermo, in Sicily; 
but in this judgment, in the case of the Indian faunas especially, I may have been 
too strongly influenced by the occurrence of those two singular brachiopod types, 
Richtojenia and Leptodus. The fact is perhaps without special significance, but 
it may be noted that the occurrences of this faunal facies, or at least the occurrences 
of these genera, in the three instances mentioned, occupy closely corresponding 
positions with regard to the earth’s equator, and may indicate a zonal develop- 
ment in the late Carboniferous. 
Again: 
The resemblances shown by the Guadalupian fauna to even the most similar 
of those brought into comparison are sporadic and almost immediately offset by 
differences as great. 
It may be that the author has discounted relationships because the 
species, minutely discriminated, are not identical with those in these very 
widely separated countries. 
Tables, such as those used by Diener in his work on the Himalayan 
faunas, indicating the distribution of identical and allied species through- 
out the world and which are so very helpful in epitomizing a work like this, 
are wanting. The discussion of the relationships of the faunal units is 
given under the head of the family in which the species or genus occurs, 
in the systematic part of the work. To collect these scattered discussions 
and tabulate them so that any general deductions could be drawn from them 
by the reader is beyond the scope of a review of this kind. 
In the discussion of the Kansas and Russian Anthracolitic faunas Dr. 
Girty states: 
Regarding the correlation of the Kansas ‘‘ Permian”’ with the Russian Permian 
I have not seen any very explicit or satisfactory evidence. ‘The question, it appears 
