1895.] Recent Literature. 557 
RECENT LITERATURE. 
The Cambridge Natural History.'—This series, to be com- 
pleted in 10 volumes, under the general editorship of Messrs. Clark, 
Harmer and Shipley, was announced some time ago, and this, the third 
of the series, is the first to be issued. Next to appear will probably be 
the insects (2 volumes) and the birds. Of the present volume 459 
pages are occupied by the molluscs, and in their treatment we find 
much to enjoy. Most of the chapters read easily and interestingly, 
and the author has, apparently, thoroughly assimilated much of the 
recent literature relating to the life histories and habits, especially of 
the terrestrial forms. This side occupies the first hundred and twenty 
pages, and is then followed by a slight and thoroughly readable sketch 
of the morphology. The next section treats of the geographical distrib- 
ution, and the concluding chapters are occupied with the classifica- 
tion in which the divisions down to families are characterized, and the 
principal genera enumerated merely by name. 
Did space permit, we would gladly give many extracts of interesting 
items from the pages, for even the hints as to phylogenetic lines are 
treated with a freshness which demands praise—but we must forbear. 
We can only refer (p. 119) to the use of snails in the manufacture of 
artificial cream, to the chapter on pearls, and the exceedingly clear 
presentation of the modifications of the odontophoral teeth. Yet we 
note, here and there, a lapse. Thus, in the boring, by means of the 
odontophore (p. 237), the observations of Schiemenz are not mentioned. 
In the matter of the eyes of Chiton, Blumrich’s results are overlooked, 
while through the work so thoroughly have the American printers fol- 
lowed the English copy that Connecticut’s metropolis appears through- 
out as “Newhaven.” The classification adopted is, in its main fea- 
tures, that of Pelseneer for the Gasteropods and Acephals (excepting 
in the matter of the Chitons and Neomenids), while the Cephalopods 
are according to Hoyle. 
In their treatment of the Brachiopods, Messrs Shipley and Reed have 
had less of popular interest to deal with, but the accounts are clear and 
this portion of the work will doubtless prove of no little assistance to 
young paleontologists. 
‘The Cambridge Natural History, Vol. III. Mollusca, by A. H. Cooke; 
Brachipods (Recent), by A. E. Shipley; Brachipods (Fossil), by F. C. Reed. 
New York and London: Macmillan & Co., 1895; 8vo. pp. xix 535. 
