Reviews—H. Woods’ Elementary Paleontology. o71 
thought he was joking; but the truth probably is that he had just 
read a manual of Elementary Paleeontology from the pen of Mr. H. 
Woods. ‘The errors in this book may be divided into inherited and 
original. We select a few specimens from either class. 
On page 2 it is stated that no remains of Rhytina gigas are found 
in the rocks. Reference to Dr. H. Woodward’s paper (Quart. Journ. 
Geol. Soc. vol. xli. p. 457) would have shown that they are found 
nowhere else, while a glance at the labelled specimen in the British 
Museum would equally have shown the incorrectness of the state- 
ment, which we presume is original. 
On page 12 Nautilus is said to extend from the Ordovician to the 
present day. This error, inherited from a dim antiquity, might 
have been avoided by looking at A. H. Foord’s Catalogue of Fossil 
Cephalopoda in the British Museum (table on page xix.). 
As for the geological ranges assigned in this manual to various 
genera of the Mollusca, it can only be said that the author’s ideas of 
what should be included under those genera are too broad-minded to 
be of much scientific value. It is clear, for instance, that under 
Cerithium the whole of the true Cerithide are included, and, since 
there is no indication of the many sub-genera (or genera, as we 
should prefer to term them), the student hardly knows what mean- 
ing he should attach to statements about the genus. Indeed, in his 
molluscan nomenclature the author strangely ignores all the modern 
work on the subject. 
On page 67 the remarks on the pedicellarize of Asteroidea would 
have been better applied to those of Hchinoidea, which are of a 
different character. 
On page 85 errors bristle; e.g. “Cup” and “Calyx” are not inter- 
changeable terms; ‘“ Disc” has never been used in the sense here 
applied to it; the arms of a Crinoid are hardly “‘soft parts”; pinnules 
are absent in a very large number of Palaeozoic Crinoids; and so on. 
On pages 88, 89 the exploded absurdity of a soft disc roofed over 
by a solid vault and the obsolete classification into Palzocrinoidea 
and Neocrinoidea are maintained, although Mr. Woods might have 
discovered the truth from the Grotocican Magazine for May, 1891 
(Dec. HI. Vol. VIII. p. 220), or even from Nicholson and Lydekker’s 
Manual of Paleontology (1889), which we notice that he has drawn 
upon in other instances. Why, out of the four genera chosen for 
description, three should be such aberrant forms as Crotalocrinus, 
Apiocrinus and Marsupites, we cannot imagine. This is originality 
with a vengeance. 
Page 108.—This is a detail; but does a Cambridge man who 
knows the meaning of dioeceous (sic) really think that umbone is 
the singular of wmbones ? 
To say, as is done on page 175, that the septal necks of Ammo- 
noidea (except Clymenia and Goniatites) are directed forwards, is 
somewhat too broad a statement, whatever construction be put upon 
it; while the announcement that “in the Palaeozoic the only genera 
[of Ammonoidea] are Goniatites, Olymenia and Ammonites” is, if not 
original, startlingly retrogressive. Originality must undoubtedly be 
