666 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXVIII. No. 984 



Arizona and California. Four specimens were 

 taken at Newcastle, Colorado, on July 16, 1907, 

 by E. R. Warren,^' ^ the locality being situated 

 on a narrow tongue of Upper Sonoran almost 

 surrounded by Transition but connected by a 

 belt of the Upper Sonoran across Utah with 

 the Lower Sonoran in Arizona, part of the 

 regular habitat of the species.^ A free-tailed 

 bat, referred to this form, was collected at 

 Manhattan, Kansas, in 1884, by Dr. C. P. 

 Blachly.^ This latter locality is Carolinean, 

 but is not decidedly distant from the Austro- 

 riparian of the Lower Austral zone of southern 

 Kansas and is connected by this with the lower 

 Sonoran fauna in Oklahoma (and possibly in 

 south central Kansas, locally), which latter 

 area is an unbroken northward extension of 

 the Lower Sonoran of Texas where the free- 

 tailed bat is abundant.* It seems likely that 

 the Manhattan individual reached Kansas from 

 Texas by this course across Oklahoma and the 

 Lincoln occurrence is probably due to a still 

 more northward extension of the same route, 

 although Lincoln is about two hundred and 

 fifty miles from the boundary of the Lower 

 Austral zone. Possibly the excessive heat and 

 dryness of the past summer in Kansas and 

 southern Nebraska had something to do with 

 the appearance of this bat of the far southwest 

 at a locality so distant from its normal range. 

 John T. Zimmer 

 University of Nebraska, 

 Lincoln, Nebr., 

 September 12, 1913 



SCIENTIFIC BOOKS 

 Prohlems of Life and Reproduction. By 



Marcus Haetog. G. P. Putnam's Sons. 



1913. Pp. 382, 41 text figures. 



This volume consists of a series of eleven 

 chapters dealing for the most part with cytolog- 



1 E. B. Warren, ' ' Further Notes on the Mam- 

 mals of Colorado," p. 85, 1908. 



2 Merritt Gary, "A Biological Survey of Colo- 

 rado," N. A. Fauna, No. 33, pp. 204-205, 1911. 



3 D. E. Lantz, ' ' Additions and Corrections to 

 the List of Kansas Mammals," Trans. Kansas 

 Acad. Sci., XX., Part II., p. 216, 1907. 



* Vernon Bailey, ' ' Biological Survey of Texas, ' ' 

 N. A. Fauna, No. 25, pp. 215-216, 1905. 



ical questions relating to the mechanism of he- 

 redity, but in part also with general subjects, 

 such as the teaching of nature study. It is, 

 indeed, a collection of biological and philo- 

 sophical essays published during the period 

 from 1892 to 1910 and here reworked and 

 modernized, to a degree, by interpolation or 

 rewriting. There is lacking any sustained 

 theme except such as is furnished by the con- 

 sideration of vital processes in some form. 



The work was first conceived as a general 

 treatise on reproduction for the non-scientific 

 public, but in its present form, although a re- 

 print of articles already published, is evidently 

 again addressed largely to scientists. If this 

 were not so it would be little read, for there is 

 no lack of technical expressions and the au- 

 thor rarely resists the temptation to increase 

 the number of these by the transformation of 

 common terms into Latin forms. 



The attitude of the author is controversial 

 and he announces in the preface that he has 

 " not hesitated to use all the legitimate arms 

 of scientific controversy in assailing certain 

 views." He inveighs strongly against the 

 practise of those writers who present the opin- 

 ions of any one school as the verdict of biol- 

 ogists in general, but is himself not entirely 

 guiltless of such emphasis on his own conclu- 

 sions. There appear frequent claims for prior- 

 ity of observation — and especially of theories, 

 not a few of which are the common property 

 of all who generalize. There is apparent the 

 customary European lack of information con- 

 cerning biological America, the result of 

 which in this case has led the author to ex- 

 plain the processes of fertilization as one 

 bringing about " rejuvenescence." As proof 

 of this he advances the questionable work of 

 Maupas upon the Protozoa in apparent igno- 

 rance of the convincing work of Jennings to 

 the contrary. Since some of the essays were 

 written a decade or two ago, there is some- 

 times lacking a modern viewpoint in the dis- 

 cussion, and even modern evidence is some- 

 times wanting. The search for ultimate 

 explanations also leads to the assignment of 

 names to conditions or relations which are 

 then regarded as having been explained. Aside 



