Botany and Zoology. 17 
book from the ay Hs which have in some degree impaired the 
usefulness of t 
Notw Ghetandius the assistance of Professors Cope and Gill 
on the parts relating to the Batrachians and Fishes, perhaps no 
ctexiana of the work stand in mesases need of revision than the 
accounts of the brains of these 
There are inconsistent, incomplete, unintelligible and incorrect 
statements, and for convenience I mention the more important 
imper fections under these heads. 
A, Inconsistent statements. —(1) Page 407, the “nervous cord 
of age does not enlarge in the head to form the brain ;” 
B. Seriously incomplete statements.—(1 he description of 
the iniips of “ Pisces” (p. (2) Page 40% equally well to the Batra- 
07, the ventricle on the dorsal 
si 
mentioned. (3) There is no allusion to size and complexity of 
the cerebellum of most sharks, or to t e apparent consolidation 
of the so-called “hemispheres” into a single median mass. 
Strictly speaking, and especially in view of the published opinion 
of the reviser as to the “taxonomic value of the brain and heart,” 
none of the brains of ce are Lae descri e 
he 
ing of the word “ fishes,” since in the section on Teleosts it is re- 
peatedly used as a synonym of the bony fishes alone: on page 405 
It is equivalent to “ Pisces 5 while in the Preface it evidently de- 
notes all below Batrachians 
neorrect statements. — (1) In whatever way the word 
“fishes ” be interpreted, the intimations of any close resemblance 
between their brains and those of Marsipobranchs, Elasmo- 
(2) Page 409, the cerebellum of the a sin is *‘ appar- 
ently not differentiated from the medulla.” This may be true of 
the hag-fishes, but in lampreys the cerebellum is perfectly dis- 
tinct, and larger relatively than in Menobranchas, 
(3) Page 417, “the brain of Siedeubeasnua; is like that of fishes 
All investigators of fish-brains agree that the brains of the sharks, 
skates, and Chimera are difficult to homologize with those of 
