58 The American Geologist. J«i.v, is95» 
on to show how, in considering the species of Batocrinus the descrip- 
tions of those from the Warsaw limestone are followed by some from 
Lower Burlington, these by forms from the Kinderhook and these 
again by Upper Burlington types and so on in "erratic promenade." 
Messrs. Wachsmuth and Springer make no claims that a strati- 
graphic arrangement is a genetic one. On the other hand, they have 
stated in no uncertain language that biotic relationships are not indi- 
cated by appearance in time of the species as we now know them. 
Every page of the Monograph shows distinctly that no attempt was 
made to array the descriptions of species in stratigraphic order. What 
object can there be in setting up such a man of straw and then pro- 
ceed to lay violent hands upon him. It is utterly beyond all compre- 
hension! 
The English critic immediately goes on to dish up four pages more 
of "other slips of like nature." It is unnecessary to go into detail con- 
cerning them. On the whole they indicate familiarity neither with the 
geology, geography or literature treated of in the book. The Keokuk 
limestone is not beneath the Burlington. The horizon and locality as- 
cribed to Batocrinus turbinatus, and its variety elegans are not in- 
correct. Both occur in the Lower Burlington limestone at Louisiana, 
Missouri, as stated in the Monograph. The species also occur at the 
same horizon at Burlington, Iowa, and Sedalia, Missouri, and twenty 
other localities. 
Nor was "Keyes' reference in the Missouri report possibly copied 
from the Monograph." The Louisiana locality was given to Mr. 
Wachsmuth, along with some unusually fine specimens personally col- 
lected; and the Missouri report was written four years before the proof 
sheets of the Monograph were read. 
A word in regard to the list of published writings of Charles Wachs- 
muth, which Mr. Bather appends to the "review" for the reason that "a 
list bearing this title has already been published in Am.erica, but it con- 
tains so many inaccuracies and deficiencies that the following biblio- 
graphy may be welcome to students." The grave "omissions" consist 
of two papers read by title before the Iowa Academy of Science, 
which were never printed, or intended to be, and of which the secretary 
of the academy in the printed proceedings, included short explanatory 
notes of his own — one of five lines and the other of twice that number. 
Casual perusal of the new "list" shows no less than 30 mistakes or 
"inaccuracies," besides four false statements, for which there is no rea- 
sonable, but one possible, excuse. No doubt Mr. Bather has been 
prompted by the most worthy and altruistic m.otives, though, if one 
were compelled to pass judgment on his "review" they could not be 
brought out with sufficient clearness. 
For the concise statements of his own views on various questions 
all crinoid students will be under lasting obligations to Mr. Bather, and 
they certainly clear up many uncertain points. c. R. k. 
