INTRODUCTION. 
Gen. Sub. 3 
Works on development are very numerous. Yatsu (957) has experi- 
mented as to the existence of “ definite specification ” in the regions of the 
egg, and finds that it is initiated by the dissolution of the germinal vesicle. 
Marchal’s paper on gefminogony (586) deals with one of Nature’s ex- 
periments of a most remarkable character, and having the widest bearings. 
The subject is evidently destined to become of much importance. It is 
treated by the author in an excellent manner. The memoir we have 
already alluded to of Petrunkewitsch on artificial parthenogenesis, besides 
dealing with the cytological aspects, discusses briefly the relation of the 
phenomena with natural parthenogenesis. E. B. Wilson (949) informs us 
that in both Annelids and Molluscs development is to be regarded as a 
mosaic-work of self-differentiating cells; specific conditions being depen- 
dent on specific forms of protoplasm. 
Sexual dimorphism and ornament has been discussed by Lameere (497). 
He traces it to equivalence of energy in the early condition of the two sexes, 
concomitant with inequal physiological division of labour. Many of his 
examples, as well as his treatment of apparently exceptional cases, are full 
of interest and ingenuity. 
In addition to discussing the matter in his larger paper, Paul Marchal 
has a shorter one on the determination of sex (587) in connection with 
polyembryony. Montgomery (640) sets forth the superiority of the female 
sex. 
Memoirs on heredity are extremely numerous. We owe to Hacker 
(358, 360) a clear exposition of the Mendel work, and a discussion of it in 
connection with recent cytology. Child (186) as the result of regeneration 
experiments concludes that heredity is a physiological not a morphological 
question. The brief note of Paul Abric (5) will no doubt receive the 
attention it deserves. In it he complains — and probably not altogether 
without n6ason — of the metaphysical nature of the considerations that 
have been previously advanced. Is it certain that the “ parasitic complex ” 
ho postulates (in this as well as in other of his notes) is altogether free 
from the taint he complains of? We may hope that it will become quite 
clear to us in what way the new “parasitic complex” differs from the 
old “environment.” 
The study of regeneration has also been very extensive. Morgan (651) 
discusses the phenomena and suggests new terms for use in the subject. 
Schultz (814) instructs us as to the general view we should take of the 
subject; and Holmes (414) has a chapter on the factors in the regulation 
of form. 
I. TITLES.* 
1. Abderhalden, E. Neuere Versuche fiber kfinstliche Parthenogenesis 
und Bastardirung. Arch. Rassen i, pp. 656-663. 
2. * . Her Arten-Begriff und die Arten- Konstanz auf biologisch- 
chcmischer Grundlage. Nat. Rundsch. xix, pp. 557-560. [From 
Zool. Anz. Bibl. xi, p. 72.] 
3. Abel, 0. Uber das Aussterben der Arten. C.R. Congr. geol. internat. 
ix, pp. 739-748. 
4. Abric, P. A propos du problkme de la pigmentation. C.R. Soc. Biol, 
lvii, pp. 229-231. 
* An asterisk prefixed to a quotation indicates throughout the volume that the 
Recorder has not seen the Journal or Work referred to. 
