No. 400.] REVIEWS OF RECENT LITERATURE. 325 
of this monumental work was undertaken by Mark and Woodworth, 
and the first part of the English edition was published in 1895. 
Since then the translation has been continued by Matilda Bernard, 
under the editorship of Martin F. Woodward; and last year two 
additional parts were issued. The portion of the work thus far ren- 
dered into English represents about two-thirds of the German text, 
the chapters on the mollusks, tunicates, and amphioxus having not 
yet appeared in translation. From these facts it might be inferred 
that translation was a more time-consuming process than original 
composition, but the true explanation is doubtless found in the liberal 
opportunities given to German teachers for work of this kind as com- 
pared with that afforded to Englishmen and to Americans. 
The body of the work is well translated, and although considerable 
freedom is sometimes taken in the adjustment of the substance of 
a paragraph to its new dress, we have found no place in which this 
change can be said to have seriously altered the sense. In com- 
paring the several parts, we are inclined to believe that the first is 
more closely translated than the remaining two. 
The arrangement of materials is a model of exactitude. The coarse 
print, fine print, and notes of the original are rendered as such, and 
the editor’s additions are always clearly indicated by brackets. The 
more recent literature is usually given in an appendix. 
The incorporation of new material was evidently one of the most 
difficult problems confronting the translators. This naturally has 
been greatly increased in the last two parts, for the assimilation of 
almost a decade of embryological work is no small task. As a rule, 
this has been met by the insertion of the more important new titles 
in the Literature Appendices, and occasionally by the addition of 
footnotes. Unsatisfactory as this method often is, it is difficult to 
see how it could have been improved upon except by a rewriting of 
the original text. 
The way in which Anlage shall be rendered into English is a 
question that confronts every English translator of German embryo- 
logical work, and, as the solutions of this question seem to be as 
numerous as those who attempt it, one is not surprised that the 
translators of the last two parts should substitute for the word “ fun- 
dament," used in the first part, their own choice, “rudiment.” This 
calls for some defense, which is given in the preface to the second 
part, where Darwin’s unfortunate use of “rudimentary” for * vestig- 
ial” is pointed out as a root of much evil. While this whole matter 
is one rather of convenience than of importance to the zoólogist, its 
