1880. | Recent Literature. 437 
cies. Though these are familiar to most of our readers, they are 
not so to the average theological student; so that our thanks are 
due to Dr. Gray for his clear and simple statement of them. He 
lays a good foundation for the further discussion of questions 
which more immediately interest theologians, viz: the evolution 
of mind and character. Into this field Dr. Gray does not enter, 
but confines himself to a pretty thorough exposition of common 
sense views of creation, such as would be naturally entertained 
by every healthy mind were it not for the difficulties raised by too 
comprehensive theologies. 
Mosetey’s NATURALIST ON THE CHALLENGER—In this record, 
by one of the naturalists of the scientific staff of the Chadlenger, 
we have probably the cream of the more important discoveries 
made by this famous expedition. The story is not told in an 
elaborate way, but rather as noted down originally in the author’s 
note book and letters home. While immense collections have 
been made by this expedition to be elaborated by specialists in 
the volumes of the Admiralty reports, it is not improbable that 
the results already published by Mr. Moseley are quite as impor- 
tant as those yet to be worked out. We refer to his elaborate 
discussions on the development and anatomy of Peripatus, by 
which this singular form has been taken from among or near the 
worms and placed with the Tracheata; also to his papers on the 
Hydroid corals, Millepora, the Stylasteride and Heliopora. The 
results of these investigations were of the highest value to bio- 
logical science. These, however, were not deep sea forms; of 
these the most important and aberrant was a deep sea ascidian 
(Octacnemus bythius Moseley). Mr. Moseley states that indeed the 
deep sea animals are mostly closely allied to shallow water forms. 
“They appear also to live associated together in closely the same 
manner as their shallow water representatives.” Moseley says 
nothing as to the fact that these deep sea forms are a survival of 
the Cretaceous fauna, as they probably are — but the general 
results of the Challenger are but an extension of what had been 
brought out by the Scandinavian, American and British deep sea 
researches which had established the fact that there was a deep 
sea or abyssal fauna; the researches of Pourtales and Agassiz in 
the Floridan channel showing that this fauna, with its arctic waters, © 
underlay, at depths below 500 fathoms, the tropical life and 
waters, 
Agassiz’s idea, however, Moseley says, that many important fossil 
forms might exist at great depths was also dispelled. This idea 
was, however, based on a misconception. The most generalized 
forms, those most likely to survive great vicissitudes and changes 
h a map, two colored plates and numer- 
1879. 8vo, pp. ‘ 
4 y H. N. Moseley, F.R.S., wi 
Ous Wood-cuts. London, Macmillan & Co., 
