Editorial .Comment. 257 
township, Hamilton county, Ohio, and Fort Hill in Highland 
county, all by Mr. W. H. Gunn, of Cincinnati. 
In the Illinois building lies a large relief map of the state, 
showing many details of the glacial geology. Such a map of 
a prairie state lacks much of the striking relief of New York 
but to the student of the Ice age there is much material for 
observation here. The representation of the leading mo- 
raines has been attempted, and the course of some of the 
larger lobes of the ice-sheet may be readily traced. Inquiry 
for the geological map of the state elicited the reply that it 
had been removed from the building to receive some recent 
revision and alteration. 
Numerous other exhibits of similar nature might be enu- 
merated, but the above-mentioned will serve as fair samples of 
what the geologist will find at the Exposition. To describe 
or even to enumerate the whole would require a long search 
and a patient and continued examination, for material more 
or less directly connected with geology is met with in the 
most unlikely places, and the visitor will chance upon such 
objects where he would never expect them. The multiplicity 
of geological work cannot but strike him, and as the world is 
not yet half investigated, the geology of the future will be a 
vast and inexhaustible topic, and its literature simply 
colossal. 
AuXOLOGY. 
The student of palaeontology who aspires to attainment in 
Messrs. Buckman and Bather's newly denominated departure, 
A uxology, will have to wrestle, for a generation at least, with 
a bewildering terminology of the stages of growth and decline. 
Prof. Hyatt, whom palaeontologists of the "new school" will 
always delight to honor, introduced a series of terms for these 
stages, and though many of them are tongue-twisters and pos- 
sibly not of the purest Attic in their composition, still we had 
become measurably familiar with them by their adoption in 
his own memoirs on the cephalopoda and their use in the well 
known publications of Jackson and Beecher, the former on the 
pelecypocls, the latter on the brachiopods. The English crit- 
ics of this terminology are not alone acute students of onto- 
geny and phylogeny, but are purists indeed, and in their pa- 
