July 5, 1007] 



SCIENCE 



15 



the " personal equation " in the attempt to 

 apply Mortensen's pedicellarian principles. 

 It seems to the present reviewer that dis- 

 tinctions between genera are impracticably 

 fine when degrees of difference in a single 

 microscopical character are their only basis. 

 Doderlein's argument is badly hampered by 

 the fact that his own figures contradict his 

 words. Thus it is said several times in the 

 text that the globiferous pedicellariae of Stere- 

 ocidaris lack an unpaired end-tooth, but not 

 less than a dozen of the figures given on plates 

 SXXVI. and XXXVII., illustrating the 

 pedicellariffi of Stereocidaris, show such an 

 end-tooth and in some cases it is very con- 

 spicuous. The volume closes with a brief 

 review of the geographical distribution of the 

 Valdivia Echini; a list of the stations at 

 which Echini were collected, with location, 

 depth, bottom temperature, species taken and 

 number of specimens of each ; a bibliography ; 

 a register of genera and species, arranged 

 alphabetically (virtually an index) ; and a 

 table of contents. The list of stations shows 

 that the most interesting hauls were at Sta- 

 tion 103, off South Africa, in 277 fathoms, 

 where nine species were taken, and at Station 

 199 in " Nias-Sudkanal," in 261 fathoms, where 

 six species occurred. Special reference should 

 be made to the illustrations in this report, 

 which are very numerous, but of very un- 

 equal merit. All are photographic in origin, 

 save only a few outlines of pedicellarise. Ex- 

 cepting these few outlines, the text-figures are 

 mostly mere " shadow-pictures," and while some 

 are useful, the great majority are of little 

 value. Of the plates, two (IX. and XI.) are 

 heliotypes and are very good, while the re- 

 mainder are phototypes on cream-tinted paper 

 and are often very poor. The trouble in many 

 •cases is obviously due to the object having 

 Tseen out of focus when photographed, and 

 some important figures are ruined by this in- 

 excusable blunder. Where bare tests are 

 shown, they were seldom carefully cleaned, 

 and the figures are correspondingly unsatis- 

 factory. The numerous microphotogi'aphs of 

 pedicellariae are useful and many are excellent, 

 "but a large proportion are aggravatingly in- 

 •distinct on important points. On the whole, 



it must be admitted that this report, because 

 of the undue importance given the pedi- 

 oellariffi for systematic purposes and the many 

 unsatisfactory figures, is somewhat of a dis- 

 appointment, and does not compare favorably 

 with the previous work of its eminent author. 

 The first volume of the " Cambridge Natural 

 History " ' contains six chapters devoted to the 

 Echinoderms, the work of the well-known em- 

 bryologist, E. W. MacBride. After a brief 

 introduction, the classification to be used is 

 outlined and then the starfishes are taken up, 

 the familiar Asterias nibens being used as 

 the type upon which the account of the an- 

 atomy is based. This account is very well 

 written, the discussion of the so-called " blood- 

 system " being particularly interesting, though 

 it is quite possible the last word is not yet 

 said on those perplexing structures. Eollow- 

 ing the anatomical portion are several pages 

 of morphological details where those features 

 in which other starfishes differ from Asterias 

 are discussed. The not infrequent defects of 

 these pages are due either to the excusable 

 necessity for brevity, as in the paragraph on 

 " Asexual Eeproduction," where statements 

 open to question are made without qualifica- 

 tion and much interesting matter is ignored, 

 or to the less exciisable lack of acquaintance 

 with a large variety of forms. To this latter 

 cause must be referred the statement that 

 " the families Heliasteridas and Brisingidffl 

 are characterized by possessing numerous 

 (19-25) arms " ; this is an unfortunate half- 

 truth, as the Heliasteridae have 21-44 arms, 

 while the Brisingidss have only 8-18. A 

 similar blunder occurs in the paragraph on 

 " spines," where the Echinasteridse are said to 

 have short, blunt spines, " very numerous and 

 thick set." This statement applies only to the 

 genus Henricia and its irmnediate allies, while 

 the other genera have widely spaced, often 

 very sharp, spines, and in Acanthaster (to 



°"The Cambridge Natural History," Vol. I. 

 * * * Echinodermata. By E. VV. MacBride, M.A., 

 P.R.S., formerly fellow of St. John's College, Cam- 

 bridge; professor of zoology in McGill University, 

 Montreal. London: Macmillan and Co., Limited; 

 New York: The Macmillan Company. 1906. 

 Chapters XVI.-XXI., pp. 427-623, figs. 185-296. 



