No. 376.] REVIEWS OF RECENT LITERATORE. 279 
and Ophiobolus rhombomaculutus), and the first of the cedar bird. 
The text tells us.of the trials necessary in order to get such results, 
and every amateur in photography knows that not every plate 
exposed can produce negatives equal to even the poorest in the 
volume. With such illustrations as a rule, it isa pity that there 
should be others in the volume, dawn by the author, of a decidedly 
lower standard. 
Judging from the statements made in the first chapter, the 
text is intended primarily for younger readers, but the author 
has not been very successful in writing up (or down) to his 
constituency. In places he explains at some length points which 
every boy knows, while in others he assumes a knowledge on their 
part of facts which of course are familiar to those who, like the 
author, have spent years in scientific study. Then the book in 
many places sets a bad example to the young in the way of faulty 
English, while the proof reading is poor, battered letters, wrong 
fonts, and bad punctuation and capitalization disfiguring the other- 
wise fine pages. Again, there are many statements open to question. 
Thus, on page 146, speaking of the turtles, our author says: “It is 
with the Batrachia only that they can claim any affinity, as is 
shown by their structure. From all other existing reptiles they are 
clearly distinguished by the hard osseous shell that encases their 
bodies... .” On page 74 the statement is made that only two 
specimens of the rare shark Chlamydoselachus have come into the 
hands of science. Garman had one; Giinther had three specimens 
when preparing his account in the “Challenger” report. In 1890 
a specimen was found off the Madeira Islands, and in 1896 one was 
found off northern Norway. Besides these, the Japanese have 
obtained several additional specimens, and as we write we find speci- 
mens quoted at about sixty dollars in the catalogues of dealers. 
Among minor faults, we notice the use of the name Murznopsis, 
although years ago Ryder pointed out that this genus had no 
validity. Fig. 106 should have been credited to Elliott. The 
trinomial nomenclature introduced here and there is unnecessary, 
and in the abbreviated form in which it occasionally appears (eg., 
L. g. getulus) it will be more than confusing to the beginner. 
Aside from such shortcomings as those instanced, the volume has 
the materials for a good book. There is a demand for books which 
will interest the young in just those lines of study which are sorely 
neglected in our ordinary text-books. The old-time naturalist had 
his faults, but he had also his merits, and it is greatly to be regretted 
