62 
POPULAR SCIENCE REVIEW. 
Paleobotany, or the paleontology of plants, is treated of rather cursorily 
in the last few chapters of the book; and there, also, the author has changed 
his plan. Instead of attempting to give a systematic revision of the fossil 
forms of plants, he has employed the chronological mode of treatment, which 
perhaps, considering all things, is the best that can be adopted for conveying 
a general idea of this department of the subject. The fact is, that from our 
imperfect knowledge of fossil plants and the very nature of those organisms, 
it would be almost impossible to produce a good picture of this department 
of palaeontology on a systematic basis within moderate limits, and the interest 
attaching to the geological history of plants is generally derived, less from 
the consideration of the individual types than of their combinations to form 
Floras, which must necessarily be treated in connection with the strata in 
which they occur. 
It would be useless, and indeed most uninteresting, to the reader, if we 
were to attempt anything in the shape of an analysis of the chapters of Dr. 
Nicholson’s work devoted to palaeozoology. It will be sufficient to say, in 
general terms, that the book has evidently been prepared with the greatest care, 
and that, on testing various parts of it, we find that the author has embodied 
in his statements the results of nearly all recent researches in all the departments 
of the subject. This is especially observable in the second volume, which 
chiefly deals with the Vertebrata ; here we find that some of the latest con- 
tributions to the history of extinct reptiles, birds, and mammals, have been 
made use of by the author. In his preface, indeed, he tells us that owing to 
some delay in publication, after the preparation of the greater part of the 
book, and indeed after a considerable portion of it was in print, he has been 
unable to avail himself of certain important memoirs which have appeared in 
the interim, such as Zittel’s valuable systematic works on Fossil Sponges, 
Professor Mobius’ treatise on Eozoon canadense , Mr. Moseley’s researches 
on the Stylasteridae, and several others which have appeared chiefly in the 
course of the year 1879. Such causes of regret, however, are almost in- 
separable from the production of a work of this magnitude ; and students of 
palaeontology have every cause to be grateful to Dr. Nicholson for the 
labour which he has expended in the elaboration of this Hand-book. * 
With the view of rendering hi3 book as complete as possible, the author 
prefixes to the systematic part of it, a general introduction, intended to 
* Although we have thought it unnecessary to attempt any criticism of 
Dr. Nicholson’s work, we may call attention to the fact that Dr. Traquair 
has written to various periodicals, calling attention to a misstatement of his 
unpublished views as to the systematic position of certain Fishes (Yol. II., 
pp. 134 and 138). Dr. Nicholson has in consequence sent out a statement, 
which may be pasted into the book as an erratum, to the effect that, ‘ The 
reader will kindly delete “ Platysomidae ” from the list of sub-orders of 
Ganoids, and place these fishes next after the Palaeoniscidae as a family of 
Lepidosteidae Dr. Traci uair holds that the Platysomidae con- 
stitute a family very distinct from the Pvcnodontidae, but closely allied to 
Palaeoniscidae, and that the position of both Palaeoniscidae and Platysomidae 
is rather in the sub-order Acipenseroidei.’ 
1 Dr. Nicholson’s mistake/ says Dr. Traquair, ‘is evidently due to his 
having had only a very hurried glance over my proof-sheets, and that only 
on a single occasion.’ 
