91 8 REVIEWS 



Bibliography and Catalogue of the Fossil Vertebrata of North America. 

 By Oliver Perry Hay. Washington : Bulletin of the 

 United States Geological Survey, No. 179, 1902. Pp. 868. 



Vertebrate palaeontologists, not only of America, but of the world, 

 are under obligations to Dr. Hay for his very useful bibliography and 

 catalogue of North American fossil vertebrates. Only he who has 

 attempted something of the sort, or who has toiled for many hours 

 trying to find what Cope has written upon some given subject — and 

 there are few subjects in vertebrate palaeontology that he has not 

 written about — will appreciate, not only the vast amount of pains- 

 taking labor that has been involved in the production of the work, but 

 also its value as a time saver. The work is as complete and accurate 

 as any one could expect it to be. Very few American papers are 

 omitted, so far as the writer can discover, and he has discovered but 

 few wrong references, not as many as might be expected from the mere 

 mechanical execution of the book and its proofreading. The work is 

 an indispensable necessity for every student of vertebrate palaeontology, 

 for which he can not be too grateful ; and it is much more than the 

 title indicates. 



There are some, however, who will not wholly agree with the author 

 in the many changes he has made in nomenclature — changes that are 

 not always consistent, but which, while detracting somewhat from the 

 usefulness of the work as a guide, do not affect it as a tool. Such long- 

 established names as Ichthyosaurus, Pterodactylus, Mastodon, Dicotyles, 

 Oreodon, Lacertilia, Ophidia, etc., have been ruthlessly decapitated on 

 the score of priority, which sometimes, as in the case of Pterodactylus, 

 is a little strained. The older French writers persistently transformed 

 technical zoological terms into the vernacular, and doubtless Cuvier 

 intended Pterodactylus as the name of the flying reptiles. Basilosaurus, 

 though expressing a falsehood, and contrary to the best canons of 

 nomenclature, he accepts in place of the well-known Zeuglodon. He 

 refuses to accept Dinocerata in place of the wrongly-formed Dinocerea, 

 though the latter term was rejected by its author, and yet changes 

 Toxochelydce into Toxochelyidae. He accepts Deinodon as distinct from 

 Dinodon, but rejects Deinosauria in favor of Dinosauria. As a purist 

 and priorist he goes too far, and becomes involved in difficulties, as is 

 always sure to be the case. Surely it is allowable to correct manifestly 

 wrongly spelled or wrongly Latinized names. But these opinions of 

 the author one need not follow unless he chooses, and he has done a 

 service in calling attention to these trivial but annoying matters of 



