Review of Recent Geological Literature. 57 
supposed theories. A short restatement of views already published by 
me may therefore be pardoned." 
This, then, is certainly not strictly a review of the Monograph, but 
a wholly different thing. 
It is difficult to fully understand just what such statements, as the 
following, mean. "The value of a work like the present depends less 
on the number of new forms it makes known, than on the care with 
which it revises previous descriptions, confirms or rejects previous pro- 
posals, and summarizes with lucidity the valid residue. It must have 
been a disappointment more bitter to the authors than it will be to 
their readers, when they found that they could not make a monograph 
even of so restricted a portion of the field either complete or authori- 
tative. Long years of labor in field and study, the accummulation of lit- 
erature in a western town, the unwearying collection and com.parison 
of specimens new and old, all were deprived of their full and deserved 
effect when it was found impossible to examine a number of type-speci- 
mens, and when, during the very years that the work was printing, less 
careful or less learned writers were grinding out descriptions of species 
with a truly indecent haste. It was found im.practicable to alter the 
manuscript to any great extent after it was first sent to the printers on 
September i, 1894. Consequently it is very important that all species 
published elsewhere between that date and May, 1897, should undergo 
revision and comparison with species first described in the Monograph. 
Till this is done and till all type-specimens have been compared, we 
cannot look for a standard list of North American Camerate Crinoids." 
Further on the critic proceeds to offer copious adverse comments 
because the authors did not include in their monograph certain changes 
that took place between the time when the completed manuscript was 
sent to the printer and the date on which the printed volumes were is- 
sued. He might with equal consistency have gone still further and crit- 
icised in the same way upon the "omissions" that have appeared since 
the work left the press! 
One can fully and freely forgive Mr. Bather for all his vigorous use 
of the Queen's English, for his sharp comments and for his frequent 
flow of sarcasm, but so long as he dwells upon the surface of this earth 
of ours he can never be forgiven or forgotten for his irrepressible habit 
of always offering up his own interpretations of what he does not thor- 
oughly understand in the works of other authors. This very bad pro- 
pensity pervades not alone his "review" of the Monograph, but many 
of his other writings also. 
For example: Regarding views expressed by Messrs. Wachsmuth 
and Springer on the genetic relationships of the forms of crinoids Mr. 
Bather observes: "Now my criticism of this Monograph is that it does 
not fairly represent the beliefs of its authors in these matters. They 
say, it is true, 'We have arranged our descriptions so as to place spe- 
cies which are most closely related next to each other' (p. 156). But 
if they have done this it has been in a very obscure fashion, and the 
.same principle is far from being extended to genera". He then goes 
