Some Recent Graptolitic Literature. — Gurley. 39 
This we can well understand as the literature is quite large. Such ac- 
quaintance is however, no less a sine qua non for successful specialistic 
work in the graptolitic field than in other departments of science. 
The following new species are described: Pristiograptus frequens, 
Poinatograptus pseudoprio)i, and P. micropoma. 
Die Oraptolithen d. k. mineralog. Museum in Dresden, by Dr. H. B. 
Oeinitz. Mitth. k. min. geol. u prcehistor. Museum in Dresden, IX 
Cassel, 1890. 
After many years spent in varied paleontological researches, Dr. 
Geinitz has once more turned his attention to the Graptolites. 
The present work is, he tells us, of the nature of a revision in the 
light of modern investigations of the material which formed the basis 
for his valuable Monograph of 1852. ^ 
The Nereograpti are omitted in the present work. Those forms with 
an unsegmented canal as N. cmnbrensis, Murch., Dr. Geinitz still con- 
siders nearly related to the living Pennatulines (Fir(/ufan'a,/?<«coide«, 
Blainv. and Funlculina cylindrica Blainv.) Those with a segmented 
canal are regarded as allied to the living Nereis and Phyllodoce, while a 
large number of the forms are ( as shown by Nathorst and others) to be 
considered tracks, etc., of worms, 
We notice that the author includes Rastrites { also Jakel's new genera 
Pristiograptus and Pomatograptus ) under Monograptus. Concerning 
the propriety of this arrangement we have no opinion to offer as our 
experience with the family Monograptidae is practically nil and we only 
note the author's synonymy as it accords with his original views and 
differs from the consensus of present writers. 
More important, it seems to us, is the refusion of such genera as 
Climaeograptus and Dimorphograptus with Dlplograptus which thus 
again tends to include a series of forms whose only similarity is the 
possession in common of a double row of hydrothecse. Dimorphograptus 
seems, ( so far as we can judge froqi the studies of others ), to be a true 
transition from the Diplograptidte to the Monograptida?. It is of the 
greatest importance in showing us the futility of classifications based 
solely on the possession by some part of the polypary of a single or 
a double row of cells. Before the discovery of the forms included in 
this genus the Dichograptidae were looked upon as the ancestors of the 
Monograptidte and were even considered monograptids solely because 
the hydrothecfe occur only on one side of the common canaj. The 
modern improvements in classification form the corollary to recent 
researches upon the life history of the graptolites, and are in large part 
based upon the relation of the sicula to the remainder of the polypary. 
Relative to Clirruicograpus we must, while entertaining the highest re- 
spect for Dr. Geinitz dissent almost in toto from tlie following passage: 
" Little regard is here taken of tlie scalarifornis of various Grapotolites (origi- 
nating through compression of the horny flexible polyp-stem) wliich Hall has 
united into the genus C'liniacoyraptn.'i since its possession by safely determinable 
species is little assured." 
The genus Clinuicogrnptus is by no means (as one would infer from the 
iGeinitz, H. B. Die Versteinerungen der (irauwackenform. in Siiclisen, etc., 
Abth. 1, Die Graptolithen ; Leipzig, 1852. 
