56 * Tlic Atnerica/i Geologist. July, i899 
The fauna of these Etcheminian beds is peculiar. If trilobites occur 
they are rare, as none were found in the examination of the faunas 
found at Smith's sound and in New Brunswick. 
The following are stated to be the genera met with, Hyolithes 2 sp. 
Orthotheca 4 sp., Urothcca (n. gen.) i sp., Aptychopsis i sp., Rcctor- 
gina (?) I sp., Obolella i sp., Obolus i sp., Coleoides i sp.. Hyolithel- 
lus 2 sp., Helenia i sp., Palacmoea i sp., Scenella 2 sp.. Platyctras 3 sp.. 
Modiolopsis i sp., Platysolonites (?) i sp. 
Fragments of cystidians and burrows and trails of worms were also 
found, including Arenicolites and Psammichnites. 
The Hyolithidas are found to be of high type and well grown, so 
also are the Capulidse; but the Gastropoda and Brachiopoda are small, 
and there is one minute crustacean. 
Attention is called to the close resemblance of the Etchem.inian sedi- 
ments of Newfoundland to the lowest "Cambrian" bed in jNIassachusetts. 
Not only are the sediments alike but the faunas are similar. Four 
wood cuts accompany the article. 
IVachsmuth and Springer s Monograph on Crinoids. By F. A. 
Bather. (Geological Magazine, N. S., Decade IV, vols. V and VI, 
London, iSgS-g.) 
It is not often that occasion arises for reviewing a review; but what 
purports to be a review of the Monograph on Crinoids is, in so many 
ways, so remarkable, coming from the source that it does, that it can 
be hardly allowed to pass unnoticed. In plan, in treatment of material 
and in nomenclature the great work was manifestly not built upon the 
ideals of the English critic. Since, however, the American authors did 
not see fit to consult others in these respects there do not appear any 
good reasons why they should come in for lengthy condemnation for 
such a course. 
So many of the "corrections" are so trivial that it would seem that 
they would find a more appropriate place than the one in which they 
appear. The wonder is not so much that the critic found so much as he 
did but that he was unable, with his eagle eye. to pick out more. To 
one glancing over the "review" the most of it appears to be taken up in 
trying to convince the reader of the importance of certain Batherian 
views with which Messrs, Wachsmuth and Springer did not agree, and 
to which they evidently did not devote sufficient tim.e in combatting. 
Whether or not Mr. Bather's "corrections" will fulfill his "desire to 
increase the usefulness of a book" time alone will prove. The discus- 
sion of what the American authors did not say regarding the critic's 
published opinions leaves little reviewed of the essential portions of the 
Monograph. The keynote of the whole criticism seems to lie in the fol- 
lowing statement: "Long ago I showed that their representation of 
my views was based on misconceptions, and again, while accepting a 
part of their criticism, took opportunity of restating my main position. 
By ignoring these protests in this monograph, Messrs. Wachsmuth and 
Springer have readily gained credit for the apparent demolition of my 
