36 The American Geologist. juiy, isoi 
prises four papers of some length, an abstract of which is attempted in 
the following pages. As will be seen all are the work of foreign 
authors. 
Uchcr das alter d. Sogcn Oraptolithcn-Oestclns mil bcsondcrer Be- 
riicksichtifjinKj der in dcnsclhcn eiithaltaicn Graptcditlicii; h\j Otto Jdkel. 
Ztschr. d. dcutsche ijcol. Gcs., XLI, pp. 653-716 ; Berlin I8!f0.. ^ 
The Gestein, the author tells us, belongs unquestionably to the Upper 
Silurian. The only question is as to its exact horizon within that sys- 
tem. After reviewing the opinions of previous workers he expresses 
his belief that the Graptolithen-Gestcin finds its equivalent in various 
horizons of the Wenlock Shale. 
The Graptolites of the formation are next considered. At the outset 
(p. 6G0) the author mentions Barrande's division of the Graptolites into 
the one-rowed and two-rowed. He further tells us that all true Grapto- 
lites are still classified in accordance with this scheme. This state- 
ment does not indicate a profound acquaintance with the later grapto- 
litic researches and especially with that masterly series of memoirs 
which has made Professor Lapworth's name to the present generation 
of graptolithologists what those of Hall, Barrande and Geinitz were to 
the preceding. Indeed we have hardly met with another recent paper on 
this group from which the name of Lapworth is so conspicuously ab- 
sent. Correlated with this peculiarity is the slight esteem in which the 
author holds the sicula, which might not inaptly be termed the organ 
of Lapworth, so closely is it associated in the mind of the graptolitholo- 
gist with his researches. In short, througliout the whole memoir the 
subject is treated from the standpoint of Nicholson's Monograph of the 
British Graptolitidae, a work which represented the high water-mark of 
the science at the time of its publication (1872) but which, we are sure, 
its own author would not recommend to Herr Jiikel as a modern text- 
book on Graptolithology, so great has been the progress of our knowl- 
edge during the last eighteen years. 
Returning to the text we find that, apparently misled by the fact that 
Mono(iraptus, Geinitz, has obtained currency to the exclusion of Mono- 
prton, Barrande, in defiance of, and not in accordance with, the rule of 
priority, Herr Jjikel tells us that: "The generic name Monograptus 
previously employed by Geinitz has been used by the later authors in 
place of Monoprlon of Barrande and in the same sense as the latter."* 
We regret to find ourselves as little able to agree with Herr Jiikel's 
views as to the conditions of life of the Graptolites as we were to admit 
the correctness of the statements quoted. He discusses at some length 
the subject mentioned and concludes that the true Graptolites must have 
been fixed. His reasons for this divergence from what we take to be 
the consensus of two generations of observers is his inability to under- 
• M. Barrande described Diprionund Monoprion in 1850. In 1852 Dr. Geinitz, 
remarking tiiat Diprionwns in-ciicc\ipit'(l, employed Professor ^I'Coy's term iJiplo- 
pnipti's in its place. In this coimectiou he said that Monoprion must be changed 
U^ jloiiogrdptHx Unhnvmony (Eiiiklanu). Later tlie powerful influence of Prof. 
Lapwortli lias secured its retention. He gives liis reasons for favoring it instead 
of Barrande's name (whicli lie admits lias priority) in liis memoir on tlie Scott ^'li 
MonograptidiE((ieol. :^Iag., 1S7C, III. pp. 310-11). It is probable that Lomatoceras 
(Brown. 1835-7. Leth. Geogn. I, pp. 55-(j), should supercede them all. 
