258 The American Geologist. October,i893 
per on "The Terms of Auxology," published first in the 
Zoologische Anzeiger (Nos. 405, 406, 1S',)2) and reprinted in 
the Geologist for July, 1893 (pp. 48-49), they have anato- 
mized, or, rather, knifed these partially adopted terms, and. 
of course, replaced their victims with new creations, more 
correct in form, undoubtedly more satisfactory to Plato, hut, 
alas! more numerous. Much of Buckman and Bather's work 
is well done. The terms applicable to the development of the 
individual (ontogeny ) had before been somewhat irregularly 
applied also to the development of the race (phylogeny). Here 
two distinct series of terms are made, those for phyletic 
stages being formed by the simple prefix phyl-, to the ontic 
term for the corresponding stage, and the outcome of this 
simplicity is such a word as (we tremble at writing it) phyl- 
hypostrophic. We do not criticise this nomenclature; it is so 
admirable in many points that we regret it could not have 
been the first on the field, but looking at the whole matter 
from the standpoint of the working palaeontologist who feels 
that he can no longer continue to use the customary para- 
phrases to express these various ontic and phyletic conditions, 
we must deplore, nay, lament, that a series of terms which 
have entered into some of the most philosophical literature of 
recent palaeontology, and which have served an excellent pur- 
pose in spite of their etiated etymology, must be superseded 
by others scarcely more euphonious or digestible. There may 
be some, we do not say that we are of them, who would rather 
cast purisms to the wind and stick to the earlier terms, than 
undergo again the mental strain of assimilating such a nomen- 
clature, but as it is evident that the old names must go. the 
future student who wishes to grasp the work of Hyatt, Jack- 
son and Beecher will need a diagram at his elbow. 
But it is in no wise certain that Buckman and Bather's ter- 
minology will meet with general adoption. Without Prof. 
Hyatt's endorsement it certainly will not be extensively em- 
ployed by American workers, and it would be rather surpris- 
ing if it full} 7 commended itself to him. So there is a possi- 
bility of still another modification, and until this unknown 
quantity takes on a palpable expression, the old paraphrases 
must still be employed, or more diagrams will be necessary. 
Here is already a faint rumble of the breakers ahead. In a 
