PROCEEDINGS OF THE CANADIAN INSTITUTE. n 



phatic nodules in the Cambrian rocks of New Brunswick. '!> In the Sponges Uv. 

 Hinde has done splendid work, '2) while Dr. Hermann Rauff has been some years 

 labouring upon a systematic arrangement of iaM the known fossil forms.<3) Professor 

 H. A. Nicholson has made the first attempt at systematizing our knowledge of 

 those difficult Hydrozoans, the Sitromatoporoids.'^) and Professor Lapworth and 

 several other investigators are doing similar work upon the almost equally diffi- 

 cult Hydrozoans known as Graptolites. In the Actinozoans a vast quantity of 

 work has been done on fossil corals since the epoch-making volumes of Milne- 

 Edwards and Jules Haime, but the great work of revision has not 'been under- 

 taken as yet. In the Echinoderms, the camerate crinoids have been revised in a 

 most elaborate manner by Messrs. Wiathsmuth and Springer, (5) and work of perhaps 

 a higher character is now being done by Mr. F. A. Bather.'S) of the British Museum. 

 In the Crustaceans vhere have been monumental works such as Barrande's, but 

 such important discoveries as those of Beecher and others in demonstrating the 

 morphology of the underside of the trilobites, so long practically unknown, and 

 the wealth of forms and knowledge of embryology and zonal conditions made 

 known by the researches of Walcott and G. F. Matthew in the Cambrian will make 

 a general revision necessary sooner or later. In the Molluscoids, in addition to 

 the Brachiopods, a great deal has been done by Professor H. A. Nicholson, ^^) E. O. 

 Ulrdchl'S) G. B. Simpson. <-•> and others, in the Paheozoic PolyzOians or Bryozoans. 

 both towards increasing our knowledge of forms and in systematizing our know- 

 ledge, although there is not enough agreement as yet for the comfort of the 

 ordinary student. In the Molluscs good work is being done in every direction, 

 notably in this country, in Mesozoic forms, by Mr. Whiteaves, of our Survey, but 

 ■the time has perhaps not come for a general revision of any of the classes unless 

 it may be the Cephalopoda. These have, throughout the history of pakeontology. 

 attracted great attention, but perhaps the work of Hyatt and of Zittel, based on 

 paljEO-biological lines, has been the most important from our own point of viev/. 

 However, so many men of ability have devoted themselves to the Jurassic ammonites 

 alone, that one is afraid to venture upon an opinion as to the probability of gen- 

 eral agreement in a scheme of classification. In connection with vertebrate 

 palaeontology, it is not necessary to speak, as the names of Cuvier, Agassiz, Owen, 

 and Cope, among those who have passed away, are well known to you all, and 

 many distinguished workers remain who will continue to fill the gaps, making 

 the vertebrate record more and more complete as the years roll by. 



If I had time I shouild like to discuss the value of that kind of pal?eontological 

 study, as it is now being carried on by certain investigators, in which regard is 

 had to the stratigraphical relations of certain fossils on the one hand, and .their 

 biological relations on the other, in order to demonstrate their evolution. In the 

 Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, (^^o) foj- August last. Mr. S. S. 

 Buckman has divided the entire Jurassic system into minute zones, each zone 



(t) G. F. Mathew. The Protolenus Fauna, Trans. N.Y. Acad, Science, vol. xiv., page log, 1895. 



(2) G. J. Hinde. British Fossil Sponges. Publication of Palajontographical Society, 1886-1893. 



(3) H. Rauff. Palaeospongiologie, Memoir in Palajontographica, edited by Prof. K. A. von Zittel, Stuggart, 

 1893. 



(4) H.A.Nicholson. British Stromatoporoids. Publications of Palaiontographical Society, 1885-1892. 



(5) Watchsmuth and Springer. North American Criniodea Camerata, Memoir, Mus. Comp. Zool., Har- 

 vard, 1897. 



(6) F. A. Bather. As an example of Mr. Bather's Palaeontological work, see Petalocrinus, y.J.G.S., vol. 

 Iv., pages 401-441. 



(7) H. A. Nicholson. The Genus Monticulipora, Blackwood, Edinburg, 1881. 



(8) E. O. Ulrich. Geological Surv. Illinois, vol. 8, iSgo. Geological Surv. Minnesota, vol. 3, 1895. 



(9) G. B. Simpson. Different Genera of FenestellidK, 13th Annual Report N.Y. State Geologists. 1894. 

 Hand-book, N. A. Palaeozoic Bryozoa, 48th Annual Report, N.Y.S. Mus. and 14th Annual Report N.Y.S. Geolo- 

 gist, 1895. 



(10) On the grouping of some divisions of so-called " Jurassic " Time, S. S. Buckman, Q.J.G.S., vol, liv.. 

 pages 442-462, August 1898. 



