1878. } Recent Literature. 177 
To the historical part the author devotes about 300 pages, 
which, as he informs us in the introduction, has been considered 
throughout from the standpoint of the evolution hypothesis. This 
is a new and commendable feature in an American text-book, as 
- previous authors have made it only a secondary matter. 
The earlier floral and faunal characteristics of the American 
continent are illustrated by well chosen figures from the works of 
Dawson, Hall, Meek, Worthen, Gabb, and others. The carbonif- 
, as 
vatherium, are 
restorations made before enough of the skeleton was known 
o make exact figures, which have since been superseded by more 
recent studies from more perfect material. 
The value of this part of the work is somewhat curtailed by 
the use in some instances of a nomenclature which is not used by 
European or many Ameérican paleontologists. As examples we 
cite the names Edestosaurus, Tylosaurus, Lestosaurus and Dinoceras, 
which have never been distinguished from genera previously 
named, and Broxtotherium, which there can be but little doubt is 
the same as the genus long since called Zitanotherium, by Leidy, 
and still earlier Menodus by Pomel. 
qualities of protoplasm peculiarly associated together. The domi- 
nant principle of this association is the physiological division of 
abor corresponding to the morphological differentiation of struc- 
ture. Were a larger or ‘higher’ animal to consist simply of a 
colony of undifferentiated Amcebz, one animal differing from 
in the evolution of living beings through past times, it has come 
about, that in the higher animals (and plants) certain groups of 
the constituent amcebiform units or cells have, in company with a 
change in structure, been set apart for the manifestation of certain 
only of the fundamental properties of protoplasm, to the exclusion 
AA Text ysi é . Foster, M.A., M.D., F.R.S., Prelector of 
Physiology saat Bellow ore iciee College Cambridge. ‘London: Macmillan & Co,, 
877, 8vo, pp. 559. | 7 
