June 7, 1895.] 



SCIENCE. 



633 



loutained in Professor Packard's review. 



In the first place the followiug statement 

 is made: " Thus in writing of the Brachio- 

 jioda the author speaks of the bivalved 

 shell ' similar to that of the bivalve mol- 

 lusk,' but he does not add that the shells 

 are doi-sal and ventral, a point in which 

 they difter from any mollusk."' Professor 

 Packard must have read my description of 

 the Brachiopoda very perfunctorily; other- 

 wise he would have seen fifteen lines further 

 on the statement : "Since the mantle-lobes 

 are dorsal and ventral in position, so too 

 are the valves of the shell." and a little 

 further on still he would have found an 

 express statement that there are impor- 

 tant differences between the shells of the 

 Brachiopods and those of the bivalve mol- 

 lusks. 



Secondly, it is implied in the review that 

 I state that the thoracic segments in the 

 butterflies and Diptera ' seem to be reduced 

 to two, etc' If my entire statement had 

 been quoted my meaning would have been 

 clear. The concluding words of the sen- 

 tence, replaced in the review by 'etc.,' read- 

 ing 'owing to the close association of the 

 metathorax with the first abdominal seg- 

 ment.' The reviewer implies that I state 

 that but two segments occur in the insects 

 mentioned, whereas I distinctly imply that 

 all three are present. 



Thirdly, the reviewer implies that I state 

 on p. 41-1: that the elements of the ovijiosi- 

 tors (in insects) are situated on the ' last 

 abdominal segment.' As it happens at p. 

 414, it is the Isopods, and not the Insecta, 

 which are under consideration. Mj- state- 

 ment regarding the ovipositors of insects 

 are: (1) " Cerci, ovipositoi-s and copulatory 

 organs are freciuently borne by the posterior 

 abdominal segments " (p. 4S9); (2) "The 

 genital orifice is situated on the ventral 

 surface of the ninth abdominal segment 

 and is usually surrounded by a number of 

 papilla", or sometimes by long processes 



which serve as ovipositoi"s. and are to be re- 

 garded simply as processes of the segments 

 from which they arise, and not as modified 

 limbs" (p. 497). In both ca.ses I use the 

 word ' segments ' and not ' segment,' and in 

 neither case do I state that the o\-ipositors 

 are on the last segment. 



There are several other points which 

 might be similarly commented upon, but I 

 do not desire to occupy space by multiply- 

 ing examples of inaccuracies in the review. 

 Surely, in the review of a scientific book 

 evidence of ordinary care in the preliminary 

 perusal of it is to be expected. 

 Yours trulj', 



J. Playfair McMureich. 

 UyiVEBSiTV OF Michigan, Slay 7th, 1895. 



[Ix reply to Professor McMurrich I regret 

 to saj- that I did overlook the words on p. 

 2G9, to which he draws attention, although 

 I still think the dorsal and ventral relations 

 of the valves had better have been empha- 

 sized in the beginning of the last paragraph 

 of the preceding page. In regard to the 

 second point, I still think that the expres- 

 sion ' seem to be reduced to two' is un- 

 necessary and a grain misleading. Third, ou 

 p. 489 (' p. 414 ' is a printer's error, for 

 which the reviewer is not responsible) the 

 sentence in question still seems to me to be 

 vague, inexact, and in part incorrect. The 

 cerci are the homologues of the other 

 jointed appendages of the body, as may be 

 seen in the cockroach and other orthoptera, 

 as well as Lyda, and the Cinura (Machilis). 

 Tliis and the few other errors noted by us 

 are blemishes which can easily be corrected 

 in a second edition. The charge that ' or- 

 dinary care ' was not exercised by the re- 

 viewer is a gratuitous one. In conclusion, 

 I may say that I regard the book as a most 

 excellent and useful one. and wish it every 

 success, as it tills a vacancy hitherto exist- 

 ing in our literature. 



A. S. Packaru.] 



