Editorial Comment. 251 
Should this appeal touch a responsive chord in any read. 
ers of this magazine, subscriptions to any amount may be sent 
to John M. Clarke, State Hall, Albany, N. Y., by whom they 
will be forwarded to the treasurer of the local committee and 
acknowledgment thereof will be duly made. 
REVIEW OF RECENT GEOLOGICAL 
LITERATURE. 
Acrothyra and Hyolithes—a comparison by G. F. Mattuew LL. D. 
[Trans. Roy. Soc. Can. 2 Ser. vol. vii, sec. iv, p, 93.] 
In this is deseribed the genus of brachiopod, Acrothyra, an ancient 
type allied to Acrotreta and in connection a comparison is made of 
this shell with those of the genus Hyolithes in which the ventral 
valve of the former is correlated with the conical shell of the latter. 
and the dorsal of the former with the operculum of the latter. 
This comparison is carried into the muscular and circulatory sys- 
tems of each, and certain striking resemblances are shown in the 
arrangement of the muscles; but on the other hand certain muscles 
of the inarticulate brachiopods are wanting in the Hyolithide. 
Hyolithes gracilis and related forms from the Lower Cambrian of 
the St. John Group. By G. F. MattrHew, LL. D. [Trans, Roy, 
Soc. Can., 2 Ser., vol. vii, sec. iv, p. 109.] 
This article describes one of three related forms of Hyolithes of 
the Lower Cambrian which have been found at St. John, (two are 
supposed to be varieties of the third) in different zones of the St. 
John group. They are compared with Orthotheca hermelini Holm of 
‘the same part of the Cambrian in Sweden, from which they differ 
in having a more strongly arched dorsal lip—also to O. teretiuscula 
Linrs., from which they differ in the flattened dorsal side. A plate 
accompanies the article, showing the three varieties of this sspecie— 
H. gracilis. 
A Backward Step in Palaeobotany. By G. F. Matruew LL. D. 
[Trans. Roy. Soc. Can., 2 Ser., vol. vii, sec, iv, p. 113]. 
From the “St. John Plant Beds” Sir Wm. Dawson described many 
years ago a flora containing a number of plants of genera unknown. 
By comparison with known Devonian genera he came to the con- 
clusion that this flora was Devonian, and so described it. 
This determination has lately been called in question by Messrs. 
David White and R. Kidston. The former has found many of the 
