316 Reviews — Dr. Ethel de Fraine on Sutclijffia. 



For the purposes of a catalogue such a course is inevitable. But 

 M. Fourtau suggests that in no otlier place would any but systematic 

 work upon Egyptian fossil Echinoids be appropriate or even feasible. 

 Surely 130 species from one formation represent sufficient material 

 for philosophical consideration ! Any phylogenetic grouping, however 

 tentative and even inaccurate, would be more illuminating than 

 a purely alphabetical arrangement of species. May we express the 

 hope that M. Fourtau, with his unique opportunities and peculiar 

 knowledge, will at some future time yield to his temptation to discuss 

 rather than describe his specimens. 



In the catalogue under consideration there seem to be more than 

 the average number of misprints and other small inaccuracies. 

 Misprints in dates are always dangerous, and on p. 83, under the 

 heading of Echinolampas ovaUs, there occurs a flagrant case. Would 

 it not be a safeguard if new species were indicated as such in words, 

 and not merely ascribed to the author with a date ? In the present 

 work new forms appear, ascribed to 11. Fourtaii under the varying 

 dates of 1912, 1913, and even 1914! In one case {Conoclypeiis 

 delanouei, var. macropyga) the legend to the plate includes the words 

 ' nov. var.', whereas in the text it is found that the variety was 

 described in 1908! Surely the removal of such fruitful sources of 

 confusion to later systematists is worth a little care in the pi'oof- 

 reading. A discrepancy in the title of the work, as engraved on the 

 plates and as printed on the cover, is a further illustration of the 

 unnecessary trouble that may be caused to future bibliographers. 



In spite of the above criticisms of detail, the catalogue as a whole 

 must be regarded as an invaluable contribution to our knowledge of 

 Eocene Echinoids, and its publication would, of itself alone, assure 

 M. Fourtau a high place among systematic Echinologists. 



H. L. H. 



IV. — Structure and Affinities of Sutgliffia. 



A PAPER in the Annals of Botany,^ by Dr. Ethel de Fraine, concerns 

 a fragment of a petrified stem which was obtained from tbe colliery 

 at Dearnley, near Littleborough. The specimen is of Lower Coal- 

 measure age, and obtained from a nodule in the roof of the workings, 

 probably from the same seam as the stem of Siitcliffia insignis, described 

 by Dr. Scott (Trans. Linn. Soc. London, ser. ii, vol. vii, pt. iv). The 

 specimen was of large size, 9"5 by 3'5cra.beingthemaximum transverse 

 dimensions, while the total length of the fragment was about 25 cm. 

 The structure presents considerable complexity, and consequently 

 a model of the vascular tissues was constructed, in order to elucidate 

 the behaviour of the strands. The main vascular axis consists of 

 a solid central strand of wood (aprotostele), surrounded by leaf-traces 

 of varying size (the 'meristeles ') ; a network of extra-fascicular 

 bands of wood and bast encloses the stele and ' meresteles ', while 

 a zone of secondary cortex forms the limit of the specimen. The leaf- 

 traces (' meristeles') pass out from the protostele without appreciable 

 disturbance of its tissi;es, and are precisely similar to it ; they divide 

 up irregularly into smaller bundles, and are ultimately entirely used up 



' Vol. xxvi, No. civ. 



