1894.] Recent Literature. 867 
taxidermy is beautifully illustrated. The author criticises the results 
attained by workers in the Museum, viewing the subject from the 
standpoint of an artist and biologist. Other important and interesting 
papers are Dr, White’s discussion of Biology in its relation to geological 
investigation, and a description of Japanese Wood-cutting and Wood-cut 
Printing by T. Tokuno, chief of the Bureau of Engraving and Print- 
ing of Japan. This paper is also finely illustrated. 
Marsh on Tertiary Artiodactyla.’—In this paper we have an- 
other characteristic production of its author. Thirteen alleged new 
species, three alleged new genera, and three alleged new families, are 
named. To point out how far they are described, and are not duplica- 
tions of other work, is the object of the following pages. The 
three * new " families are not described at all, not a single character 
being assigned to any of them. No reasons are given to show that they 
differ from each other or from familiesalready known. The three new 
genera are described, but are not compared with genera already known 
out of North America. One of them (Agriomeryx, p. 270) is identical 
with the Coloreodon Cope, described in 1879* and figured in 1884 and 
1858". In addition to these three genera, references are made to nine 
other alleged genera named by the author in previous publications, 
Taking these up seriatim, the first in order is called Eohyus, which 
name was used without accompanying description in an address 
delivered by Prof. Marsh and published in 1877. The introduction of 
this and other new-names in this way in that address gave them no 
authority, and other names applied to the same types at subsequent 
dates, if accompanied with a description, would necessarily be used, 
But if not so replaced, this rehabilitation afterseventeen years, should 
be such as to satisfy the rules of nomenclature. But what is now offered 
tous? The only diagnosis of Eohyus vouchsafed to us, is that “ the 
type specimen is a last upper molar and the characters of its crown are 
well shown in the figure," which accompanies the text. This will 
scarcely do as a generic diagnosis, and no other specimens represent the 
species and genus! Yet on the strength of this material he bases the 
“new” and undefined “family Eohyid:e." The spécimen comes A 
the Wasatch of New Mexico. He then d tly, and 
without figure, an alleged second species from the Puerco a 
- *Report of the U. S. National Museum for the year ending June 30, 1892. 
Washington, 1893. 
5 Description of — Artiodaetyles by O. C. Marsh. Amer. Journ. Sci. 
Arts, 1894. Sept., p. 25 . 
. *Proceedings iban Philosoph. Society. 
