652 Reviews — Neicton^s Eocene and Oligocene Moilusca. 



his Introduction, page v) his intention to describe and figure all 

 those specimens bearing MS. names in due course; we hope he will 

 keep his resolution strong, and get them all as speedily as possible 

 stamped with the imprimatur of authority. 



Apart from this, the work is a step in the right direction, which 

 all who are interested in Malacology will be delighted to welcome. 

 For many years past the nomenclature adopted for the fossil Moilusca 

 in England has been much behind the times, many quite dissimilar 

 forms being frequently included in the same genus. In the work 

 before us, as the result of recent researches, many of these old 

 genera have been split up into two or more genera, and although 

 the older workers may denounce this as fiercely as in Joshua's days 

 they cursed the man who removed his neighbour's landmark, never- 

 theless, in a more calm and philosophical state of mind, we are 

 compelled to admit that these adjustments, if honestly and judiciously 

 made, must be of material assistance to the student in the future, 

 especially if he is attempting to correlate (as he ought) the recent 

 with the fossil forms. 



This revision has not been carried out always with equal rigour 

 by the author. The old genus Cerithium, for example, has been 

 very properly split up into several genera; but Pleurotoma, which 

 also needed revision, is retained in full force, although numerous 

 Malacologists have shown that it comprises many genera well 

 known to the student of living mollusca, 



Again, the genus Chrysodomus, in the work before us, includes 

 a number of diverse forms which might have been dealt with more 

 analytically by the author. 



In a first attempt at completing such a task as was left behind 

 unfinished by F. E. Edwards and Searles V. Wood, it must necessarily 

 follow that much more is needed before the work can be said to be 

 thoroughly accomplished. 



In carefully following the original authors in their varied spelling 

 of species, and terminations of the names, Mr. Newton has laid 

 himself open to criticism from the more exact writers on recent 

 and fossil shells, who would, in their earnest desire for uniformity, 

 alter the terminations of such names so as to bring them all into 

 one regular line, like a regiment under inspection ; but, unless 

 absolutely a misspelling, many writers consider such alterations of 

 names actually wrong. 



Thus Deshayes' name is used specifically in eight different 

 genera, and by as many different authors, four species being spelt 

 Deshayesii, and four Deshayesi. Similarly, we have Boiverbankii on 

 page 22, and Bowerbanki on page 219 ; Wetherellii on page 26, and 

 Wetherelli on page 215. In each case the names are by different 

 authors, and given according to their own notions. 



Some few specific names vary to the extent of two final letters. 

 Thus we have Cardium Etheridgii, p. 51, and Helix Etheridgei, p. 270; 

 Aporrhais Sowerhii (p. 97) Bnllinella Sowerhyi (p. 2€6), and Planor- 

 bis Sowerbyi (p. 283) ; but different authors have each adopted their 

 own termination, and these Mr. Newton has retained and respected. 



In the matter of generic names, and the changes which they have 



