


of their specimens, and may thus obtain erroneous ideas of relation- 
___ Ships. The lapses are too numerous for a man with Dr. Fewkes’s exten- 
: sive knowledge of the group. The concluding portion of the paper, 
996 The American Naturalist. [November, 
handy aid to the identification of the more common littoral and pelagic 
species. First comes an account of the methods of collecting (not a 
word concerning modern methods of ‘preserving specimens), and then — 
the synopsis of the forms enumerated, something after the fashion of — 
an analytical key. Numerous original figures will aid the student in — 
his identifications. The arrangement of the divisions recognized is 
hardly up to date, and in some cases it is open to serious criticism. 
Thus, for instance, Dr. Fewkes associates the Ctenophores with the 
Hydrozoa as a subdivision (‘‘order’’), equal in rank to the Trachy- 
medusze (!) The recent important conclusions as to the position of 

fleshy protuberance of folded membrane”; by implication the 
Ctenophores (p. 13) would be included in the naked-eyed Meduse; 
the Madreporaria (p. 55) are made to include Pennatulacea, Gorgo- 
nacea, and Alcyonacea (!), while (p. 57) the Alcyonacea are placed — 
under the Gorgonacea, etc. We have been moved to these comments 
from the fact that beginners arè likely to use this in the identification 

Which consists of a list of times of occurrence of marine larvæ x 
sales: is me most valuable co of it. 






