91 
Diatoms of Upper Tatra. By J. Sclmman. 4 plates 
(separate). Zool. Bot. Society of Vienna, 1807. 
Action of Light on Algae and some Allied Organisms. 
By A. Famiutzin. Pringsheim’s J ahrbucher fur wiss. Botanik, 
vol. vi, 1st and 2nd part, 1868, p. 1. 
Mycological Notes. By F. Hildebrand. 3 plates. Pring- 
sheim’s J ahrbucher , 3rd part, 1868. 
On the Physiological History of the Mucedinse. By Ph. 
van Tieghem. Annates des Sciences Nat. ( Botan .), vol. viii, 
ser. 5. 
On the Relations of the Gonidia of Algae and those of 
Lichens. Botan. Zeitung, 1868. 
On the Change of Gonidia of Lichens into Zoospores. By 
MM. Famintzin and Boranetzky. Ann. Sci. Nat. {Botany), 
ser. 5, vol. viii. 
Microscopic Diagnosis — The Typical Value of the Lingual 
Dentition in the right Distribution of the Genera of Gaste- 
ropoda into Natural Groups and Families. By John Denis 
Macdonald, M.D., F.R.S. 1 plate. Annals of Nat. History, 
October, 1868. — This paper will, without doubt, be of interest 
to many of our readers in whose hands we have recently 
placed sis plates of figures of molluscous odontophores, with- 
out, we regret to think, any new or important remarks upon 
them. Dr. Macdonald’s paper will be found to be a really 
philosophical attempt to advance our knowledge on this 
subject. It is impossible to abstract a paper which is itself 
much condensed. As to the value of the lingual ribbon as a 
microscopic means of diagnosis, Dr. Gray (who has written 
much on this subject) remarks — 
“ 1 think that Dr. Macdouahl has committed an error 
that is common to young naturalists — has mistaken an 
analogy for an affinity. The form of the lateral teeth of the 
odontophore is, no doubt, a good specific (and, may be, 
generic) character ; but I think that Dr. Macdonald’s table 
proves that it is not the character of a family. The cha- 
racter of a family should be derived from the consideration 
of the whole animal — its form, the form and development of 
the teeth, and the form of the shell and operculum ; and not 
from any one character, such as the form of the lateral 
lingual teeth, especially if it brings together in the same 
family such a series of incongruous genera, and separates 
nearly allied genera as they are separated in Dr. Mac- 
donald’s list. Therefore I cannot agree with him that ‘ the 
lingual dentition appears to be the only appeal,’ or that the 
best means for arranging the genera and families is accord- 
ing to the form of the lateral teeth. I think, if any one will 
consult Dr. Macdonald’s plate, he must perceive that the 
