522 THE AMERICAN NATURALIST. [VOL. XXXII. 
the method becomes obvious, for an outline figure covering something 
over eight square inches is repeated frequently to show the positions 
of bones often occupying not over an eighth or even a sixteenth of a 
square inch of surface. The method is certainly better than that of 
giving only a single general figure on some remote page, but it seems 
to us less successful and Certainly less economical than that of 
placing the general figures on a folded sheet which, though attached 
to the book, may be kept in view while any page is being consulted. 
Another feature of the illustrations is their size. Those taken 
from the cat are said to be magnified twice, except where otherwise 
stated, a rule for which Fig. 524 is an exception. This double mag- 
nification is generally satisfactory, for a smaller cut would usually 
involve the loss of some important details; but the enlargement of 
many figures, such as those of the lumbar (Figs. 65, 69) and of the 
caudal vertebra (Figs. 79, 81), seems to us uncalled for 
Aside from the remarks on the human skeleton, almost the whole 
volume is written in the spirit of pure descriptive anatomy, for, 
although the book purports to be among other things a preparation 
for comparative anatomy, information of a comparative nature seems 
almost studiously shunned. Thus, in describing the ossification of 
the occipital bone, the statement is made that it arises from four 
parts, but not the least intimation is given that these parts are the 
real bony elements separate in most vertebrates and fused in the 
higher mammals to form the occipital bone. Other complex bones, 
like the innominate, etc., are scarcely better treated. Some idea of 
the author’s conception of comparative anatomy may be gained from 
the statements on page 596, where the names of the carpal bones are 
arranged in three columns, according as they are employed by Ameri- 
can anatomists, European anatomists, and comparative anatomists ; 
the last, according to their column, have not as yet discovered the 
pisiform bone. Notwithstanding that the author chooses to ignore 
the many pertinent and well-established facts of comparative anatomy, 
he indulges without any apparent reason in a discussion of seventeen 
pages on the evolution of mammalian teeth, a discussion which 
presents only one side of an extremely complex question and which 
in reality is largely made up of quoted extracts from the later writings 
of the author’s celebrated townsman, Professor Cope. Why the teeth 
rather than other parts should have been taken for comparative 
treatment is not clear. On the whole, the way in which the author 
chooses to deal with the comparative side of his subject is perhaps 
the least satisfactory aspect of the volume. 
