182 



SCIENCE 



N. S. Vol. XXX. No. 762 



atlas not being pierced by the vertebral artery 

 and having a prominent median hypapophysis, 

 the odontoid of the axis being very large and 

 short and supported on the enormous anterior 

 border, while the neural tunnel in both bones 

 is very circumscribed. The head was probably 

 pointed downward and M. Gaudry ventures 

 the hypothesis that the beast had the propor- 

 tions of a gigantic cavy with bent fore limbs, 

 but post-like hind limbs. A cervical vertebra 

 is flattened, as in Arsinoitherium and the 

 Proboscidea, but the lumbar vertebrae differ 

 from the latter type. The most striking con- 

 trast with the Proboscidea lies in the forearm. 

 The scapula has the spine turned forward 

 instead of backward, the coracoid process is 

 very long and prominent, the glenoid greatly 

 extended. The massive humerus is extremely 

 broad with very stout ento- and ecto-condylar 

 and deltoid crests, large tuberosities and an 

 enormous head. The radius and ulna are also 

 very stout but absurdly short. M. Gaudry con- 

 cludes from a study of the muscular attach- 

 ments that the very powerful forearm may 

 have been used in digging. The lunar and 

 pyramidal (cuneiform) resemble those of 

 Elephas, but are narrower. The acetabulum, 

 as in the elephants, faced downward rather 

 than outward. The straight hind limb had a 

 long femur held almost in line with the tibia; 

 the astragalus was greatly flattened and the 

 navicular facet was directly below the tibial 

 facet, and this indicates that the foot was 

 strictly rectigrade, i. e., with the digits in line 

 with the tibia. To compensate for the relative 

 immobility of the pes the knee joint could 

 double up at a very sharp angle. 



Upon this material M. Gaudry bases the 

 important conclusion that Pyrotherium is not 

 an ancestral proboscidean, and that all its 

 resemblances to members of that order result 

 from the assumption of bilophodont cheek 

 teeth and post-like, rectigrade hind limbs ; that 

 these resemblances are accompanied by more 

 numerous and fundamental differences, and 

 that, in brief, Pyrotherium is not closely re- 

 lated to any other of the great " pachyderms " 

 of different orders, such as Astrapotherium, 

 Dinoceros, Arsinoitherium, Brontotherium, 



etc., and does not fit into any known order., 

 This being the case, it seems rather unfor- 

 tunate that M. Gaudry did not indicate by 

 what name the new order containing Pyro- 

 therium should be called. 



William K. Gregoey 

 Amekican Museum of Natural History, 

 New Yoek 



Bighthandedness and Lefthandedness, with 

 Chapters treating of the Writing Posture, 

 the Rule of the Road, etc. By George M. 

 Gould, M.D. Pp. 210. Philadelphia and 

 London, J. B. Lippincott Company. 1908. 

 Since the appearance in 1891 of Sir Daniel 

 Wilson's "The Eight Hand: Left-handed- 

 ness," no volume, besides the present one, 

 treating of that subject exclusively, has beett 

 published. Unlike Wilson's book, which treats 

 rather of the archeological evidences of the 

 origin, and the occurrence in primitive times, 

 of left-handedness. Dr. Gould's monograph ap- 

 pears as the advocate of a new theory of right- 

 handedness. In addition to this theory, ac- 

 cording to which the predominant use of the 

 right or left hand is determined by the domi- 

 nance of the right or left eye, the pathological 

 effects of faulty writing postures and the 

 rules of the road, follow as corollaries to it. 

 The theory which is by far the most interest- 

 ing part of the book may be summarized in 

 three propositions: (1) In all the higher ani- 

 mals in which a visual function is developed, 

 purposive movements follow as a consequence- 

 of sight. 



To begin with, embryology demonstrates the 

 existence of vision long before muscles, so that 

 historically and evolutionally vision governs mo- 

 tility; the very cleavage of the brain in the two 

 so independent halves of all types was doubtless 

 due to the unilateralism and independence of 

 ocular function (p. 45). 



In animals whose eyes are placed so far 

 laterad as to have no common field of vision, 

 the right eye necessarily governs the move- 

 ments of the right, and the left eye the move- 

 ments of the left, limbs. In such animals, 

 there is no necessity for the predominant use 

 of one of the fore limbs; therefore, nothing 

 analogous to right or left handedness is to be 



