490 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. V., No. 123. 



as now known, indicates that the genus repre- 

 sents a distinct family of perissodactyl ungu- 

 lates, the Coryphodontidae. The skull is 

 clearly of this type, and the skeleton and feet 

 present no differences sufficiently important to 

 justify a separation from that natural order" 

 (Amer. journ. sc. and arts, 3d ser. vol. xiv. p. 

 84) . Yet in the present volume he adopts the 

 order under the name of Amblydact}da. But 

 the proposed new terms, Amblydactyla, Cory- 

 phodontia, Holodactyla, and Clinodactyla, are 

 all synonymes of earlier names, and cannot be 



The plates of this volume are be3 r ond all 

 praise. They are drawn with the utmost fidel- 

 ity, and at the same time are most beautiful 

 specimens of artistic skill. In this respect 

 they may challenge comparison with any simi- 

 lar work. The printing and type leave nothing 

 to be desired, and the numerous finely executed 

 woodcuts add much to the clearness of the text. 

 Notwithstanding, then, all that we have found 

 to criticise, ' The Dinocerata ' is a splendid 

 piece of work, which is an honor to American 

 scientific enterprise. 



RESTORATION OF TINOCERAS INGENS MARSH. ONE-THIRTIETH NATURAL SIZE. 



adopted. This volume is, we believe, unique 

 among modern scientific works in not contain- 

 ing a single reference in the text to the work 

 of others, and the reader never knows how 

 much of the book has already been anticipated. 

 There is, it is true, a scrupulously exhaustive 

 bibliography appended ; but, as few can plod 

 through such a mass of pamphlets, injustice 

 cannot be avoided by this method. 



In conclusion, a few words as to the classifi- 

 cation of the Dinocerata. The genus first to 

 be named was the Uintatherium of Leidy : the 

 Tinoceras and Dinoceras of Marsh, and the 

 Loxolophodon andEobasileus of Cope, were de- 

 scribed at later dates. As far as the evidence in 

 this volume goes, these names all refer to the 

 same genus, which, of course, must be called 

 Uintatherium. The shortness of this article 

 will not allow us to attempt to prove this prop- 

 osition, but we believe it capable of satisfactory 

 demonstration. It is, however, a matter of 

 slight importance. 



REPORT OF THE U. S. ENTOMOLOGIST 

 FOR 1884. 



Workers in economic entomology look for- 

 ward with especial interest to the appearance 

 of the annual report of the U. S. entomologist. 

 The bureau under his charge is the only in- 

 stitution devoted to this department of science, 

 which is liberally supported ; and therefore it 

 is rightly expected that this report shall be the 

 most important contribution to applied ento- 

 mology during the } 7 ear. 



The report before us, contained in the report 

 of the department of agriculture for 1884, 

 consists of a hundred and thirty- four pages, 

 illustrated by ten plates. The more important 

 articles in the body of the report treat of 

 kerosene emulsions, the streaked cotton wood 

 leaf-beetle, the southern buffalo gnat, and the 

 cranberry- fruit worm. There are appended to 

 the main report several reports by special 

 agents. 



The article of most general interest is that 



