418 Reviews — Oshorn's Tertiary Mammal Horizons. 



The Burdigalien fauna will doubtless appear more distinct when 

 the remains of the above-mentioned genera and others have been 

 more closely examined. 



Both the Proboscideans from the Sables de V OrUanais, mentioned 

 above, are smaller than the species of the Tortonien from which 

 their names have been borrowed ; furthermore, the Dinotherium of 

 the Burdigalien received a specific name {B. Cuvieri, Kaup) long 

 ago. The late Abbe Bourgeois' collection in the College of 

 Pontlevo}'^ (Loir-et-Cher) contains, it is true, in addition to undoubted 

 Burdigalien forms, several Mastodon-teeth from the Faluns of 

 Pontlevoy and Thenay, which seem indistinguishable from those 

 of Mastodon angustidens. The Faluns belong to the Helvetien, 

 and the presence of Burdigalien forms must be accounted for by 

 supposing that they have been derived from that deposit, the fauna, 

 in fact, apparently including both derived and contemporary forms 

 of terrestrial Mammalia. 



The AnchitJierium was named (A. aurelianense) after the specimens 

 from the Calcaire de Montahuzard ; the detailed descriptions are 

 based on specimens from the Tortonien. The Ancliitheriiim remains 

 from the Sables de F OrUanais will presumably prove to be a less 

 specialized stage in the Equine series than those of the Tortonien. 



As to the Suidse from the Sables de V OrUanais, they have been 

 shown by H. Stehlin to be distinct from those of the Aquitanien 

 as well as from the Tortonien Suidse. 



The Lagomorphous Eodent of the Burdigalien is not a Titanomys, 

 for it has rootless cheek-teeth ; it is not a Prolagus, for its lower 

 cheek-teeth are five in number, not four. In the above characters 

 and in the general conformation of the upper middle premolar, 

 it agrees with Lagopsis and Lagomys. But it difiers from Lagomys 

 and from the only known species of Lagopsis (Z. verus from the 

 Tortonien) in the pattern of the anterior lower premolar. 



Part II deals with the " Faunal Eelations of Europe and America 

 during the Tertiary Period and Theory of the successive invasions 

 of an African Fauna into Europe." In the chapter "Tertiary 

 Geographical Distribution" we notice the omission of two important 

 papers bearing on the subject. Eeferring to the hypothetical 

 "Continent Antarctica," the author says: "Following Blanford 

 (1890), Forbes (1893) made the first strong plea for this continent." 

 The first strong plea, and with several sounder arguments than 

 some of those advanced in recent years, was made as long ago as 

 1867 by Eiitimeyer,^ whose masterly sketch is at the same time the 

 strongest possible appeal to set zoogeography on a palseontological 

 basis. Elitimeyer ultimately divides the world in a northern and 

 southern division (op. cit., p. 15 and map), which do not quite 

 coincide with the Northern and Southern Hemisphere, and are 

 therefore in better agreement with the known facts than Huxley's 

 Arctogcea and Notogcea (1868). Eiitimeyer's dual division is also 

 more consistent with the hypothesis of an Antarctic continent than 

 Blanford's three divisions. 



^ " Ubcr (lie H. rkunft unserer Tliier^n^elt. Eiue zoogeograpliisclie Skizze " (1867). 



