74 
POPULAR SCIENCE REVIEW. 
over, and a severe relapse of which came on on reading the present publi- 
cation. If, as we have said, there is any one point more than another of 
interest in relation to birds and reptiles, it is the singular affinites in struc- 
ture which Huxley has lately pointed out, and in our eyes a book which 
merely refers casually to these as statements u of ingenious men who merely 
strain facts to support a preconceived hypothesis,” is one much to he con- 
demned, in so far as it proposes to represent modern science. For this 
reason, too, we think that Mr. Parker Gillmore is to be taken to task, in 
that he has not incorporated with M. Figuier’s hook the 4 more striking 
results of the researches on the Iguanodon and Compsognathus. The whole 
book, taken tout entier , is not worth a single page of that most remarkable 
and absorbing article on the “ intermedial forms between reptiles and birds,” 
by Professor Huxley, which appeared in this journal less than two years 
ago. Apropos of this subject, we may mention that the editor’s note on 
page 2, which implies a correction of a proposition laid down by Professor 
Huxley, arises from an absurd mental confusion of two very distinct groups 
of animals. On the whole, we can recommend this work as a good reading 
book for young people, but certainly not as a scientific treatise on its 
subject. 
[Owing to pressure on our space, reviews of the following works are un- 
avoidably postponed till our next number. Seeley’s “ Ornithosauria, 
Aves, and Reptiles; ” Macnamara’s “ Treatise on Asiatic Cholera; ” Bence 
Jones’s “Life and Letters of Faradav;” and Figuier’s “Earth and 
Sea.”] 
