38 The Aynerican Geologist. July, 1896 
A discussion of the method employed and the scientific results ob- 
tained in this paper is the best general criticism that can be made. 
The Auloporidaj and the Syringoporidaj (including Syringopora and 
Romingeria) are considered as the fossil ancestors of Tubipora and 
its allies; Trachypora, Striatopora, Pachypora, Alveolites and Clado- 
pora are ranked with the Gorgonias: Thecia, Michelinia, Favosites, 
Heliolites, Halysites, etc., are placed under the Alcyonacea, and Fistuli- 
pora, Monticulipora, Chsetetes and their allies are regarded as repre- 
senting the Pennatulacea (!). This last, seemingly, for the curious 
reason that having divided the Alcyonaria into the Tubiporacea, Gor- 
goniacea, Alcyonacea and the Pennatulacea, and the fossil tabulates 
into four similar groups, having accounted respectively for the first 
three divisions of each group, there remained the Pennatulacea on one 
hand and the monticuliporoids on the other to be associated, simply 
because they were residues. It will be noticed that Syringopora, Aulo- 
pora, Michelinia and Favosites, which are usually considered to be 
closely related, are here placed each in a different family, while Syrin 
gopora and Aulojjora on one hand, with Michelinia and Favosites on 
the other, are even i-eferred to different orders. 
The method employed by Mr. Sardesou is by linking genvisand genus 
in a prolonged series. But in so doing each genus is not taken as a 
whole, as a concept of all the component species. A single species, 
often, it may be said, the type species, is discussed in more or less 
detail and its characters taken as representing the genus. The dangers 
of such a proceeding are apparent. By this method generic and specific 
characters are not differentiated and phylogeny is liable to be based 
upon points which have no constant systematic value. Furthermore, 
another weakness in this system, the same characters or group of char- 
acters are not used consecutively for classificatory purposes, but in any 
portion of the series, a, h, c, the common features which linked a to h 
may be entirely lacking in c, while c may be ordered with b on the 
strength of characters which are similarly lacking in a. 
But the most serious arraignment I have to make of the general 
method employed is that in a paper of over one hundred pages, a paper 
which is systematic in its purpose if it is anything, the preeminent 
value of embryologic phases as phylogenetic factors is entirely over- 
looked or slighted. Indeed, the statement is so generally true that it may 
be made without modification, that nowhere has the writer used either 
embryologic stages or the succession of organic types in geologic time, 
as a proof or as a check upon his work. Not only not performing inves- 
tigations himself, but not even taking advantage of investigations 
already made, whether in the field of zoology or palaeontology, he pur- 
sues a theoretic course independent of facts of supreme importance 
ready to his hand. The following are criticisms on a few points devel- 
oped in Mr. Sardeson's paper: 
The distinctive character of the Alcyonaria seems to consist in the 
fact (1) that the skeletal tissue, when calcareous, is not solid, but com- 
posed of separate spicules, which, however, are sometimes cemented b 
