508 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. V., No. 124. 



ical objects which have been found in all coun- 

 tries, and have been described under the names 

 of Cruziana, Rusophycus, etc. These are 

 usually casts of impressions in what was the 

 slimy surface of a mud sheet, sometimes an 

 inch, sometimes a foot or more, in length, by 

 from one to two inches in width. A deep 

 sulcus traverses the middle, and the surface 

 is marked by divergent and parallel, or curi- 

 ously reticulated and inosculating ridges. 



First noticed by Dr. Locke in Ohio in 1838, 

 and named by Vanuxem in 1842 Fucoides 

 biloba, by D'Orbigny in 1842 Cruziana, by 

 Rouault in 1850 Fraena, and by Hall in 1852 

 Rusophycus, they have been since referred to 

 under one or another of these names by most 

 writers on geology. By the authors mentioned 

 the}' were regarded as the impressions of sea- 

 weeds ; but by Dawson, Lapparent, Briart, 

 Hebert, Hughes, Nathorst, and J. F. James 

 the}* have been considered the tracks of 

 animals. Saporta, in the work under con- 

 sideration, discusses their character and origin 

 at great length. He pronounces them fucoids, 

 and calls them Bilobites, taking the name from 

 De Kay, and referring for authority to the 

 first volume of the ' Annals of the New- York 

 lyceum of natural history' (1824), where a 

 paper is published by De Kay, " On the 

 organic remains termed ' Bilobites ' from the 

 Catskill Mountains," illustrated with one plate 

 and four figures. 



On referring to this paper, every American 

 geologist will at once recognize in the fossil 

 described, Conocardium trigonale, a character- 

 istic mollusk of the corniferous limestone and 

 the Schoharie grit. When the suture of this 

 shell is exposed, the carinated valves present 

 an appearance which led our earlier geologists 

 to regard it as a crustacean allied to the trilo- 

 bite, but distinguished by having two lobes in- 

 stead of three. De Kay, though retaining the 

 term ' Bilobites,' recognized its molluscous 

 character, and its resemblance to Cardium. 

 From these facts it will be seen that Bilobites 

 of De Kay has no relation whatever to Fu- 

 coides biloba of Vanuxem, or Cruziana of 

 D'Orbigny, and the name has been erroneously 

 applied by Saporta. The descriptions of 

 Vanuxem and D'Orbigny bear the same date ; 

 but, the old genus Fucoides having been broken 

 up and abandoned, D'Orbigny's Cruziana 

 would seem to be the proper name for these 

 singular objects. Hall's name, Rusophycus 

 (called Rysophycus by Hughes as being more 

 correct), is apparently a synonyme of Cruzi- 

 ana, and, published later, must be superseded 

 by that. 



Though we have thus obtained a name for 

 these objects, their true character is as far 

 from being demonstrated as ever, nor does it 

 seem probable that the present diversity of 

 opinion will soon be harmonized. Every one 

 who has seen much of the exposures of shallow- 

 water sediments, shales, and flagstones, will 

 concede that many of the so-called fucoidal 

 markings are of mechanical origin, and will 

 accept Nathorst's view that such casts as 

 Eophyton and Panescorsea are inorganic. 

 Where the cast consists of a number of diver- 

 gent ridges springing from a common stem like 

 branches from a trunk, such as Vexillum Sap. 

 (which, however, can hardly be distinguished 

 from Licrophycus of Billings) , the conclusion 

 seems inevitable that the cast is organic, and 

 the form is rather that of a plant than a 

 sponge. 



Although so far resulting in little demon- 

 stration, the discussion in which Saporta and 

 Nathorst have taken the leading parts has 

 excited much interest, and has been productive 

 of an important series of experiments and 

 observations. Doubtless in this, as in many 

 other discussions, the truth will be found to lie 

 between the views of the opposing leaders, yet 

 science will be advanced by the stimulus to 

 inquiry furnished by these very differences. 



J. S. Newberry. 



PRONUNCIATION. 



Meeting a book of this kind, admitting its 

 possible utility, one naturally asks whether the 

 pronunciations recommended are correct, with 

 allowance for admissible variations, whether 

 the description and representation of sounds 

 are exact and clear, and whether the list of 

 words likely to be mispronounced is judiciously 

 made. The first and last of these questions 

 suggest no severe criticism of this book, unless 

 one considers only matters of detail. We 

 mention only one. Paragraph 51, in the in- 

 troduction, should be changed so as to make it 

 clear that by ' antepenultimate vowel ' is meant 

 that in the Latin words referred to, not in the 

 English, as is now absurdly said. 



The second question shows the weakness 

 and unpractical plan of the book. Passing by 

 the introduction, which shows some careful 

 observation, but has several hazardous asser- 

 tions, we come to the body of the book. Here 

 each page contains two columns, — on the right 

 hand, the words in alphabetical order, but 



A handbook of pronunciation. By Lewis Sherman. Mil- 

 waukie, Cramer, Aikens, <& Cramer, pr., 1885. 174 p., illustr. 



