262 REVIEWS 



arrangement of the species would have been much more convenient to 

 the user than the systematic arrangement which was adopted. It is 

 necessary now for each student to prepare his own index or hunt labor- 

 iously for any species which he may wish to consult. 



The unqualified use of subgenera in place of genera may have some 

 points of advantage, but the plan is open to severe criticism on the ground 

 of the enormous bibliographical difficulties involved; it would seem that 

 whatever system or method is used, an author should at least be con- 

 sistent in the same paper. The authors here describe Epitonium 

 (Boreoscala) washingtonensis , new species, and figure it as Epitonium 

 washingtonensis leaving out the subgenus; but they describe Pyramidella 

 (Syrnola) vaderensis, new species, and figure it as Syrnola vaderensis, 

 leaving out the genus; etc. 



The authors have failed to designate type specimens of their new 

 species, and do not state where the described and figured specimens are 

 located although such has been accepted museum practice for many 

 years. The original collection was divided into two parts, one of which 

 was taken to Cornell University for study, but the reader is left entirely 

 in the dark as to where the actual specimens described and figured may 

 be consulted. This is a matter of great importance because many of 

 the descriptions contain no comparisons with other species. 



The illustrations are from photographs and are much better than 

 any which have previously appeared in this series of the University 

 publications. Nerita washingtoniana (PL XI, fig. 4.), however, is repre- 

 sented by a mere blotch of light while the description is so generalized 

 that it is entirely unrecognizable. 



The authors have tangled the nomenclature of two freshwater 

 gastropods to an unpardonable degree. On page 44, Goniohasis hannibali, 

 new species, is described as "extremely variable." The extreme form in 

 sculpture has been taken for the type of the species. Goniobasis olequ- 

 ahensis (Arnold and Hannibal) represents the smooth type of shell. .... 

 The collection contains specimens which show transition stages between 



the two types of shell One must then wonder why the "new 



species" was described at all. They state that Dr. H. A. Pilsbry has 

 determined Ambloxis olequahensvs Arnold and Hannibal to be a Gonio- 

 hasis, yet on the same page (45) they describe Goniohasis olequahensis 

 new species! If new, why was not another name chosen? 



It is noted that the measurements published in the descriptions are 

 far from being in agreement with the statements given in the explana- 

 tions of the plates in some cases, as for instance, Lima packardi (p. 15). 



