Revieivs — Wachsmuth 8f Springer's Monograph on Crinoids. 277 



and criticized at a week's notice. The second reason is the large 

 amount of personal controversy and criticism of my own writings. 

 Of this so much was made in certain premature reviews published in 

 America, that I could not, at an earlier date, have avoided some 

 remarks in self-defence ; and I was unwilling to attack one whose 

 mouth had so recently been sealed by death. The time has at last 

 arrived when I can venture on a satisfactory appreciation of this 

 work, and when argument may meet argument without suspicion of 

 personal bitterness. Therefore, with the kind permission of the 

 Editor of the Geological Magazine, I propose to deal, in a series 

 of notices, with the several sections of the book, directing special 

 attention to facts or opinions first published therein. 



The perusal and reperusal of this work has brought to light a few 

 errors. The correction of these, as the pages are passed in review, 

 will, I trust, be ascribed less to a love of censoriousness than to 

 a desire to increase the usefulness of a book that must be the 

 standard of reference for many years to come. Several of these 

 errors are by no means peculiar to Messrs. Wachsmuth and Springer, 

 and it was hardly in their power to discover them. 



This memoir consists of three parts : — Introductory, dealing with 

 the history of our knowledge and with terminology ; Morphological, 

 dealing with the elements of the crinoid skeleton, and with such 

 internal organs as leave traces in the fossils ; Systematic, first 

 dealing with the classification of the Crinoidea, and then describing 

 the North American genera and species referred by the authors to 

 their Order Camerata. Eight plates and a few text-figures elucidate 

 the morphological questions discussed, while seventy-five illustrate 

 the descriptions. 



The drawings have been made in pencil by C. E. Keyes, J. L. 

 Eidgway, and A. M. Westergren, and have been reproduced by the 

 Heliotype Printing Co., Boston. There are also a few drawings by 

 G. Liljevall. This mode of illustration is the most satisfactory for 

 palaeontological work when fine detail is to be shown. Its peculiar 

 difficulties have been overcome, so far as possible, by the attention 

 of Mr. Westergren. Many of the figures are admirable examples 

 of draughtsmanship ; whether they are correct cannot be decided 

 (except in a case to which I shall recur) without comparison with 

 the specimens figured. A thoughtless habit of praising scientific 

 illustrations because they look pretty has made the reputation of 

 many a careless draughtsman. The magnification of the figures 

 should have been stated in all cases where they are not of natural 

 size, not merely in some cases. Information is given as to the 

 collections in which the figured specimens are, but the original 

 locality of each specimen is not indicated. The type-specimens are 

 distinguished, but nothing tells us that several other specimens 

 have been already figured elsewhere. In a few instances it is hard 

 to see how the information that is given can be correct. It is, for 

 example, impossible that figs. 2a and 26 on pi. xv should represent, 

 as they are said to do, the ventral and dorsal aspects of " the same 

 specimen " of Gilhertsocrinus disj^ansus ; even more does this apply 



