No. 408.] REVIEWS OF RECENT LITERATURE. 983 
some elementary directions as to methods of preparation and study, 
as well as a description of the parts under consideration, and is 
written from the standpoint of the older anatomy. Thus the state- 
ment is made that the black bass seems invariably to have thirty 
vertebrae, though in a former count the author reported thirty-two. 
His present changed opinion rests on the examination, as he tells 
us, of two perfect specimens, a rather limited number on which to 
base a general statement, and certainly not sufficient to show that 
the former count of thirty-two may not at times be realized. The 
modern anatomist is beginning to appreciate the fact that perfect 
uniformity in the number of parts is rather the exception than the 
rule, and that the truth of the matter is often better expressed in 
statements indicative of the range of variation in structures than 
in careful descriptions of them from one or two individuals. In this 
respect Dr. Shufeldt’s work belongs to the older school. P. 
Skeleton of Vulpes Macrotis. — The fact that the skeletons of 
none of our smaller western foxes have ever been fully described has 
led Dr. Shufeldt! to prepare an account of the osteology of Vulpes 
macrotis, The description is taken from a single specimen collected 
in Arizona and now in Dr. Shufeldt's possession. An exhaustive 
study has brought to light many points of resemblance and differ- 
ence in the skeleton of this species as compared with those of closely 
allied forms, but without disclosing any important morphological 
matters. In the account of the skull, Dr. Shufeldt takes the late 
Dr. Elliott Coues to task for having systematically ignored the tur- 
binal masses, and yet lays himself open to the same criticism by 
giving no description of these parts in the animal under considera- 
tion. To the scientific reader the text is somewhat marred by inser- 
tions such as those pertaining to the clavicles. These bones were 
missing in the specimen described by Dr. Shufeldt, and yet the 
reader is informed that * there is every reason to suppose that they 
agreed in their general character with the vulpine carnivora gener- 
ally; that is, in some respects they were rudimentary and did not 
reach either the acromion or the sternum.” Statements of this kind 
add nothing of importance to osteological descriptions such as this 
paper abounds in, and tend to discredit what is otherwise a com- 
mendable collection of anatomical details. p. 
1 Shufeldt, R. W. The Osteology of Vulpes Macrotis. Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. 
Philadelphia. Vol. XI, pp. 393-418, Pls. XXII, XXIII. 1900 
