Reviews — Dr. Kitchin's Jurassic Fauna of Catch. 277 



introduction (p. 4). He says in regard to cases of resemblance to 

 European forms : " It has been considered more expedient to apply 

 a new ' specific ' name than to ascribe the doubtful form as a ' variety ' 

 to the respective European ' species.' This has been done in the 

 belief that the application of the term ' variety ' is not admissible in 

 cases where the direct relationship to the ' species ' either cannot be 

 definitely proved or at least does not appear very highly probable, 

 for it surely commits us to the opinion that such relationship exists, 

 whereas the use of a 'specific' name, while fulfilling the requirements 

 of convenience, leaves the question of relationship open." 



This is evidently the correct course. For it must be confessed 

 that among our English Jurassic Brachiopoda, as well as among 

 other fossils, too few names have been far more hindrance to our 

 knowledge than too many. Especially regrettable has been the 

 placing by study geologists as ' varieties ' of well-known ' species ' 

 forms which lived long before those species, a course taken against 

 the express wishes of the field geologists, but taken to satisfy the 

 lumping tendency so prevalent in the middle of last century. 

 Anyone can lump, but to lump correctly is the difficulty — that is 

 a paraphrase of the words of a German palseontologist. And now 

 it may be said in dealing with similar forms — where there is any 

 marked difference of horizon or locality what has to be proved is 

 the combination, not the separation. The former is the rash course, 

 and it must be justified by very clear evidence ; the latter is the 

 course which experience has so frequently proved to be correct, 

 and therefore its adoption is justified by analogy. 



It is the latter course that Dr. Kitchin has rightly followed. He 

 has found among these Jurassic Brachiopods of Cutch many forms 

 with striking resemblances to European species ; but the chrono- 

 logical difference is great, and so is the difference of locality. 

 Remarking on the fauna as a whole the author says, " it would thus 

 appear that the Middle Jurassic Brachiopoda are less adapted to serve 

 as indices to the detailed stratigraphical comparison of remotely 

 separated areas than the Cephalopoda" (p. 79). This is, of course, 

 what would be expected, though remoteness is not always a necessary 

 factor. There is the remarkable case in our English Jurassic 

 Brachiopoda fauna, the notable discrepancy for a portion of Inferior 

 Oolite time of the Cotteswold species from those of Somerset-Dorset, 

 and even from those of Dundry, only a few miles away ; whereas 

 both before and after this time the same species of Brachiopoda are 

 found in all these districts, and even from Gloucestershire to 

 W'irtemberg the Brachiopods are good indices for detailed strati- 

 graphical comparison. 



The resemblance, which the author notices, of later Cutch species 

 to European forms earlier in date need not destroy the value of the 

 Brachiopods for stratigraphical work, though it may make direct 

 comparison difficult. But the same thing is known in Europe. 

 Many examples might be cited, but sufficient will be ZeiUeria 

 MaricB of the Middle Lias, ZeiUeria hullaia of the Fuller's Earth, 

 ZeiUeria perobovata of the Cornbrash ; or Terehratula stibmaxiUata 



