368 



SCIENCE. 



[X. S. Noi,. will. No. 4.-.^ 



he proves himself a prophet and a statesman 

 in the best senses of the words, as well as an 

 eminent representative of natural philosophy. 

 The editor has properly anticipated that the 

 volume will be much consulted, and he has 

 supplied an index which will prove particu- 

 larly useful to those not already acquainted 

 with the scope of importance of FitzGerald's 

 writings. An excellent portrait accompanies 

 the volume as a frontispiece. 



R. S. W. 



Lehrhiich der vergleichenden Anatomie. By 



B. Haller. Erste Lieferung. Jena, Gus- 



tav Fischer. 1902. 



This book, the first portion of which is here 

 considered, is intended by the author to fill 

 the gap left vacant by the aging of Gegen- 

 baur's ' Grundriss der vergleichenden Ana- 

 tomie,' a book familiar enough to the older 

 generation of zoologists, but now almost un- 

 known, its last edition having appeared sonie 

 twenty-five years ago. 



The ' Grundriss ' was what its title denotes, 

 a comparative anatomy as contrasted with a 

 zoology, or, in other words, a concise exposi- 

 tion of the various systems of organs in their 

 modifications and adaptations throughout the 

 animal kingdom, rather than a description of 

 the morphological characteristics of the vari- 

 ous classes of animals. That such a book, 

 brought up to date, would fill a gap in our 

 zoological literature there can be no doubt, but 

 that the volume before us does so is more 

 than questionable. For it is a compromise ; 

 it is a zoology as far as its general plan is 

 concerned, and a comparative anatomy only 

 so far as each great zoological group is con- 

 cerned. Its plan is essentially the same as 

 that of Lang's ' Lehrbuch,' though on a less 

 extensive scale, and because it is less detailed 

 the defects of the plan are all the more pro- 

 nounced. 



And even more to be criticized is the classi- 

 lieation which has been adopted for the achor- 

 •data, which alone are treated in the portion 

 'of the book before us. The recognition of a 

 group Vermes, including the platyhelminths, 

 nemathelminths, rotifera, chfetognaths and 

 annelids, and a group i\rthropoda including 



crustaceans, arachnids, protracheates and tru- 

 cheates as of equal value with a group Bryozoa 

 and a group Brachiopoda, not only indicates 

 a depressing lack of taxonomic perspective but 

 leads the student to erroneous conceptions of 

 the affinities of the invertebrate phyla, therebv 

 depreciating one of the prime values of com- 

 parative anatomy. 



The contents of the book, apart from these 

 general defects, are on the whole good and 

 cover the proposed ground as completely as 

 could well be expected within the limits set. 

 They may, however, be criticized for a lack of 

 clearness, attributable to a certain extent to 

 the unfortunate arrangement of topics and for 

 occasional errors of statements. Among the 

 latter may be mentioned the description of 

 the mesenterial filaments of the Anthozoa as 

 ' finger-shaped processes ' arising from the 

 edges of the mesenteries, an error repeated in 

 the figure illustrating the structure of an 

 Anthozoan, and the rather scant reference to 

 the coxal glands of the Xiphosura and arach- 

 nids as integumental organs. 



The figures are numerous and on the whole 

 Tvell chosen and admirably reproduced. The 

 text, however, awakens wonderment by the 

 extraordinary number of typographical errors 

 which it contains. The technical terms of- 

 fend especially in this respect, though by no 

 means exclusively, and though it would be an 

 exaggeration to say that an error occurs on 

 almost every other page, one cannot help won- 

 dering how the proof-readers could have al- 

 lowed so many flagrant errors to escape notice. 

 Aehorodaten (Achordaten), Hiozoen (Helio- 

 zoen), Mikrocoma, Hyppocrane (Hippocrene) 

 and Pachyrehina are hardly recognizable in 

 such novel guises and Parammcium masque- 

 rades as Paramoetium, Parametium, and Para- 

 mcetium. But disturbing as these examples 

 may be, it gives one an actual shock to find 

 Loxosoma quoted as a multinucleated infu- 

 sorium, Idotea as an oj)isthobranch mollusk, 

 and after reading a paragraph concerning the 

 Phronimidse to discover that the author is 

 really talking about the Phoronidse. There is 

 probably an exialanation for such remarkable 

 errors, but there cannot be a valid excuse 

 for them. 



