982 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XI. No. 286. 



the latter including Sponges, show little altera- 

 tion, which is just as well. Additional refer- 

 ences to writings on Protozoa are given on p. 

 36, but among them is no mention of C. D. 

 Sherborn's 'Bibliography of the Foraminifera.' 

 On p. 82, Professor von Zittel has himself added 

 a summary of Dr. Ogilvie-Gordon's classifica-. 

 tion of Anthozoa, but without expressing any 

 opinion as to its value. 



The account of the Crinoidea, good as it was 

 in the ' Grundziige,' has been greatly improved, 

 presumably by Wachsmuth, who also made 

 valuable additions giving the latest views of 

 Wachsmuth and Springer. This should be 

 most useful to those unable to see the splendid 

 monograph by those authors. The same learned 

 writer also revised the accounts of the Cystoi- 

 dea and Blastoidea. It is the more unfortunate 

 that so authoritative a piece of work should be 

 marred by several slips. Fig. 237, A, a is not a 

 ' posterior view ' of Pisocrinus, but is from the 

 right side, as also is B, a. The stem of Hcrpeto- 

 crimis is anything but ' sharply pentagonal ' in 

 section (p. 153). Achradocriniis appears in two 

 families (pp. 155, 158); the former position, in 

 the Gasterocomidffl, is probably the correct 

 one. The calyx of Apiocrinidse is not ' unsym- 

 metrical ' (p. 167). ' Jaekel regards the centro- 

 dorsal (of Telracrinus) as representing the au- 

 chylosed basals, notwithstanding the absence of 

 axial canals,' should read: 'because of the 

 presence of axial canals.' Fig. 296, ' Caryo- 

 crinus ' should be Caryocystis. Camarocrinus 

 Lobolithus and Lichenocrinus are without doubt 

 the roots of Pelmatozoa and not cystid calyces, 

 as on p. 188. The anus of Anomalocysiis is un- 

 known ; the account of it on p. 186 is therefore 

 incorrect. The analysis of a Blastoid theca 

 (Fig. 312) is oriented in a very puzzling man- 

 ner ; the uppermost radial is the right anterior, 

 the lowest deltoid is the left posterior, the lower 

 deltoid on the right is therefore the posterior 

 and ought to show a notch or hole for the anus. 

 These little slips are just the things that worry 

 an earnest student. 



Mr. W. P. Sladen has not taken advantage of 

 the opportunities offered by a revision of the 

 Asteroidea and Ophiuroidea, while in the Echi- 

 noidea he has not advanced beyond the classifi- 

 cation of Duncan in his Linnean Society paper 



with its pre-Linnean nomenclature. The ac- 

 count of the sea-urchins is, however, clear and 

 comprehensive, and additional references to 

 publications are given. Among these the ref- 

 erence to Keyes, Proc. Iowa Acad. Sci., Vol. 

 II., will not be of much use to students on this 

 side of the water, if I may judge by my own 

 fruitless attemps to see that paper. 



A little more exactitude has been introduced 

 by Dr. G. J. Hinde into the chapter on those 

 troublesome fossils assigned to worms of one 

 sort or another. One looks in vain, however, 

 for any pronouncement on the perplexing 

 Platysolenites of the Cambrian. Its associate, 

 Volborthella, is placed among the Cephalopoda, 

 a position that will need some defending. 



The account of the Bryozoa has been ex- 

 panded from 9 to 34 pages by Mr. E. O. Ulrich, 

 and many illustrations have been added. This 

 careful piece of revision is most welcome. 



Recent work on the Brachiopoda is summar- 

 ized by Mr. C. Schuchert, who has contrived to 

 classify all the genera on the basis given by 

 Beecher. Modification in details will doubtless 

 be required, but Mr. Schuchert works on ad- 

 vanced lines, and his attempt must prove of 

 the greatest service to the many workers who 

 are attempting to apply modern ideas to the 

 vast hordes of fossil brachiopods. 



In entrusting the Pelecypoda to Dr. W. H. 

 Dall and the rest of the Mollusca, with excep- 

 tion of the Cephalopodes to Mr. H. A. Pilsbry, 

 Dr. Eastman has been well advised. There 

 are no higher authorities on those groups. Dr. 

 Dall's contribution is an adaptation of his me- 

 moir published by the Wagner Free Institute of 

 Philadelphia in 1895. The main divisions, 

 based largely on the characters of the hinge, 

 may commend themselves to those who deal 

 mainly with the fossil shells, while Dr. Dall has 

 evaded the objections that have been raised to 

 some of .the minor groupings — Palaeoconcha, 

 Schizodonta and the like — by stating that these 

 terms are retained ' merely as convenient de- 

 scriptive appellations, and are in nowise to 

 be regarded as possessing systematic values.' 

 Though further investigation both of adult 

 morphology and of ontogeny is sure to modify 

 the phylogenetic bases on which the ultimate 

 classification must rest, yet this careful synopsis 



