Reviev of Recent (reologlcaJ Lttcfoture. 317 
are points in the description and figure that cause us to tliink it possible 
that their specimen is not a true Modiolopsis, but rather an Orfliodesma. 
M. suh'dta seems to l)e a sharply distinguished species, but the Ortko- 
desma mundiim, as illustrated, has a general expresr^ion decidedly like 
Modiolopsis ancdontoidci*, M. cincinndtiensis and other species of that 
type. The illustrations of these shells have evidently been drawn by 
one unaccustomed to do natural history work. The specific characters 
are rather indefinitely brought out, and reasonable restorations of out- 
line, perfectly justifiable, might have been attempted with profit. 
We fail to see any grounds whatever for separating Proto^colex mag- 
nus from Ulrich's P. oriKitus, since the claim that tlieir species is larger 
than his rests upon a misapprehension. In all other respects they are 
identical, and Ulrich's measurements indicate a size scarcely if at all 
inferior to those given for P. iixtgnus. 
As to the merits of Cyclo cyst aides cincinnatiensis and llolocjisiites af- 
fnts, little can be said, since they belong to genera of which very differ- 
ent opinions prevail respecting their specific variability. According to 
our experience, species of these genera are numerous enough, but indi- 
viduals of the species seem to be rare. 
Geological Survey of Missouri, Arthur Winslow, state geologist, The 
Iligginsville sheet, in Lafayette county. 17 pp. folio, map and page of 
geological sections. Published by the (xeological Survej^ Jefferson City, 
April, 1892. 
This report and map, and the plat of sections, are based on good work, and 
they are finely executed, /or their kind. But their kind is very bad. It has 
been; and is still, to some extent, the practice of state geological surveys 
to publish large maps, or large sheets of larger maps, which are enclosed 
in a roll, or in a case which is entirely separated from the descriptive re- 
port. The two get far separated, and generally the maps become lost, 
or at least greatly damaged b}' the difficulties of handling. Thus the 
value of the reports themselves is lessened or lost. We instance the late 
publications of New Hampshire, Ohio and Wisconsin. Prof. Winslow 
has endeavored to obviate this inevitable separation and damage by 
printing the report on the same sized page as the large map and issuing 
them together as one document. But in our opinion he has onh^ in- 
creased the objections to the large folio (or sheet) size of publication 
They will of course not become separated, thus bound in one cover, 
bvit the common user of such reports will have the trouble of handling 
suph a sheet many times increased. Common library shelves will not 
accommodate such a document, and yet it should be in as ready reach as 
a book on a library shelf. W'o like the plan of the IMinuesota and Penn- 
sylvania surveys (2d survej-) which is the converse of this, viz: The 
maps are planned to be the size of the book-page (large quarto) includ- 
ing only a county on each. These are bound into the book and are in- 
separable from it, and are always handy to consult whenever the report 
is read, and being of ordinary size the maps and the text can always be 
kept in convenient place with other books; and the maps themselves 
