Reviews—Cossmann’s Shells of the Paris Basin. 79 
In the Supplement, which is a lengthy one, the author describes 
several new species, and adds some new localities. The Catalogue 
was such a long time passing through the Press that many alterations 
in nomenclature were in the meanwhile proposed. A large number 
of these were made by Messrs. Harris and Burrows in their work 
on the ‘“‘Hocene and Oligocene Beds of the Paris Basin” (Geol. 
Assoc. separate publication) 1891; and by Mr. R. B. Newton in his 
“Systematic List of the F. EH. Edwards’ Collection,” etc. (British 
Museum, Nat. Hist.) 1891, and are duly acknowledged by the author 
of the work under review. 
The following abridged Table may be useful as giving some idea 
of the number and distribution of the species found in the Paris 
Basin Eocene :— 
Stratigraphical Distribution. Faris Basin. 
Number of Species occurring in 
é epcelss a 
atalogued. || Lowest | L 2 Mid. Upper 5 = 
iategantes Hover! Eocene. | Eocene. Belgium. | England. 
Pelecypoda. 1075 161 295 529 388 136 144 
Gasteropoda. 2080 291 487 | 1104 737 96 207 
Pteropoda. 4 — 1 3 — — — 
Cephalopoda. 14 1 5 10 2 6 d 
Brachiopoda. 20 1 — 18 1 2 — 
Totals. 3193 | 454 788 1664 1128 240 308 
Upper Hocene includes the ‘Sables Moyens,” and the Saint-Ouen 
limestone. 
Middle Eocene refers to the three horizons of the Calcaire Grossier. 
Lower Eocene applies to the sands of Aizy and Cuise. 
Lowest Hocene comprises the “Sables de Bracheux,” Rilly lime- 
stone and Lignites. 
The number of species said to be common to the Paris and 
English beds will doubtless be materially augmented when the 
mollusea from the latter have been more fully described. 
The “Supplement” concludes with an exhaustive index of genera, 
sections and species. 
Reviewing the whole work, we think that the author has had a 
tendency to create rather too many sections in certain genera. We 
have heard influential French paleontologists make disparaging 
remarks anent the large number of species described by Bellardi, 
many of which are so closely allied as to be frequently indistinguish- 
able from each other; in other words, they accused the lamented 
Italian malacologist of being a “hair-splitter.” So far as Nassa, and 
a few other genera are concerned, we entirely agree with them, and 
the method at present being resorted to by Bellardi’s successor, of 
making innumerable “ vars.,” is certainly to be deplored. But those 
“who live in glass houses should not throw stones,” and our French 
contemporaries would do well to revise the large number of so-called 
species included in the Naticide, Cerithide, and Turritellide of the 
