VIII. RECAPITULATION.

The number of species of Reptilia Squamata of the Medicolumbian region is as follows. The species of Batrachia have been already enumerated in my book on that class.*

'The Batrachia of North America, Bulletin of the U. S. Natl. Museum, No.

34, 1889, p. 451. The species of the Toltecan subregion are mostly omitted from this book.

EDITOR'S TABLE.

It is difficult to eradicate from scientific literature a name or word which has become current, even after it has been found to be an expression of ignorance or error. Thus some names introduced into Zoology die hard. It is perfectly well-known that the grouping of forms named by Cuvier Pachydermata, is entirely unnatural, and the appropriate positon of all of its contents has been exactly determined; yet the word occasionally crops up still in the literature. The supposed primary divisions of fishes Ganoidei and Teleostei, have a still more vigorous vitality, although it is perfectly clear that there is no use for either term. The supposed Ganoid division is thoroughly heterogeneous, its contents forming with the Teleostei a more comprehensive division, the Teleostomi of Owen, which naturally falls into several primary divisions three of which were included in the Ganoidei by Agassiz and Müller. Perhaps the most pestilent pretender of the list, is the word Amphibia, which is so frequently used instead of the proper name of the class Batrachia. The name Amphibia was originally applied to a combination of the Reptilia and Batrachia, before the fundamental differences between the two were known. When the Batrachia were first separated from the Reptilia, the new name was naturally applied to the new division, and the name Amphibia would have been more applicable to the larger division of its former selfi. e. the Reptilia. As, however, its definition accorded with neither the Reptilia nor Batrachia, it was not used for either, nor was it introduced to take the place of Batrachia with a definition, until a few years ago by Huxley. This was done in defiance of the universal usage of naturalists at the time, and probably in ignorance of the real state of the case, since it frequently happens that men engaged in the real work of biological science, find questions of names irksome and stupid. Nevertheless it is a distinct advantage always to have but one name for one thing; and that name should be the oldest which was applied to the thing in question as determined by the definition given. Applying this principle, the name Batrachia has a quarter century priority over Amphibia.

In the April, 1896 number of this journal (p. 292) we published what purported to be a review of a work by Wachsmuth and Springer, which was signed by one of our frequent contributors. In a foot note the work is stated to have been published in 1895. We have learned

from leading authorities on the subject of the work, (the Crinoidea), that it was not published at the time the review was issued, nor it is yet published. We make this statement, since it is important that the date of publication of all books, especially scientific books, should be correctly ascertained and reported, and because we desire to prevent any confusion as to the date of this particular publication which might arise from our having published the review in question. As is usual with periodicals, we assume no responsibility for articles published in the NATURALIST unless they are anonymous.

The dates of publication of the numbers of the American NatuRALIST during the years 1895, and 1896 are as follows: for 1895; Jan., Jan. 15th; Feb., Feb. 14th; March, Mch. 6th; April, Apl. 9th; May, May, 13th; June, June 3d; July, July 9th; August, July 31st; Sept., Aug. 28th; Oct., Sept. 26th; Nov., Oct. 29th; Dec., Dec. 6th.

For 1896; Jan., Dec. 31st, 1895; Feb., Jan. 30th; March, Mch. 9th; April, Apl. 2d; May, May 2d; June, June 3d; July, July 2d; August, Aug. 6th; Sept., Sept. 9th; October, Oct. 3d; Nov., Nov. 2d; Dec., Dec. 5.

RECENT LITERATURE.

Gregory's Plant Anatomy.'-Among the host of botanical textbooks that are constantly appearing, it is a pleasure to welcome one that is a contribution to certain departments of botanical literature, rather than a mere exposition of the laboratory and lecture methods, good, bad, and chiefly indifferent, of the author. While it is to be assumed that American investigations in histology and in cytology have not been lacking during these past few years, the fact remains that they have not as yet resulted in an increase of literature upon these subjects. While there can be no doubt that the tide is setting steadily and strongly in the direction of higher things in cisatlantic botany, this is as yet a premonition rather than a fact, and the few texts leading toward this are to be regarded as pioneers and valued as such. These books are divisible into two classes, and in evaluating them, it is necessary to measure them by a proper standard. Thus, a book which purports to be a textbook should not be criticized because it does not manifest

1 Elements of Plant Anatomy, by Emily L. Gregory, Ph. D. Professor of Botany in Barnard College. Ginn & Co., Boston, 1895, pp. VIII, 148. 8vo.

the depth and comprehensiveness of an exhaustive treatise, nor should an elaborate work on original investigation be supposed to cover the details of elementary science.

The present book is intended to serve as an introduction to the elements of phytotomy. This purpose is effected more than ordinarily well. It is no mean task to distinguish between the relevant and the irrelevant, between the essential and the non-essential in the construction of an elementary text. In these very points, the author has been particularly happy, and deserves congratulation upon the coherency and the coordination manifested in the text.

A striking feature of the book is its prevailing clearness. Many otherwise well written and helpful text-books are marred by the fact that too much is written between the lines, a thing deplorable in any scientific writing, but especially so in an elementary one. The author has succeeded, however, not only in establishing delightful perspicacity of style, but also in maintaining it throughout the work. In consequence, the beginner may find here a text which presents in a remarkably easily assimilated condition those rudiments of plant anatomy which should serve as a foundation for advanced botanical study in all lines.

The merits of the book are many and obvious, and warrant passing its few defects in silence. Its inspiration is readily recognizable as of the German school, an additional point in its favor were it not for a prefatory remark to which the reviewer must enter serious objection. The author states that "it is quite certain that the measure of our progress in any science may be found in our ability to adapt the thought and experience of other nations to our special needs and resources," a statement of such a very peculiar nature that comment is superfluous.

The book is divided into two parts, the first of which treats of cytology, or, as the author terms it, the anatomy of the cell. Under this, the first chapter treats of the cell as a unit, the second and third present the subjects of cell-wall and cell-contents in their modern aspects. The second part discusses the anatomy of tissues, first generally, and then more specially, with reference to the thoroughly antiquated divisions, Thallophytes and Cormophytes. The last chapter, the irrelevancy of which is excused by its importance, is devoted to an exposition of the secondary growth of stems and roots.-FREDERIC E. CLEMENTS.

Boulenger's Catalogue of Snakes in the British Museum.1 -In this work we have a manual of Ophiology in which the subject is 1 Catalogue of the Snakes in the British Museum. Vol. I, 1893; vol. II, 1894; vol. III, 1896. By G. A. Boulenger, F. R. S.

as nearly as possible brought up to date. The especial advantage of being the work of the Keeper of the largest collection of Ophidians in the world, makes this catalogue of especial value to all students. The author informs us that there are known 1639 species of snakes, of which 1327 are represented in the collection of the British Museum by 11092 specimens.

A good deal of valuable new osteological work enters into the systematic, which will be at once recognized by specialists. Thus the determination of the forms which have elongate hypapophyses throughout the vertebral column is here made for the first time, and the discovery that all the Colubridæ of Madagascar have the prolonged series of hypapophyses, is one of the notable announcements of the work. The peculiar pterygoids of the Amblycephalidæ are the author's discovery, as are also the split ectopterygoids of Dispholidus, etc., and the confluent optic foramina of the Psammophiina The labor of specific determination of over 11000 specimens, in au order where variation is often conspicuous, is, however, the great feature of such a work as this, and even the approximately complete form in which it is now presented, is a monument to the industry and acumen of its author, and a service rendered to science by the British Museum which will always remain.

There are, however, some spots on the face of this illuminating ing production. The labor of determining the true limits of variable species has in a good many instances, it seems to us, proven too much for the patience of the author, and he has resorted to the convenient method of "lumping" too often. He has given up a valuable feature of the older catalogues, the list of doubtful species. In the present work all published species are either good or bad, whether the author has had the requisite opportunity of determining their true status or not. Thus it has happened in not a few instances that names relegated to the synonymy in the body of the work are reintroduced in the Addenda as belonging to good species. Had the author the material it is probable that a good many others would have been reeognized before the final issue of the Catalogue. The author has been especially unfortunate in his treatment of North American species, and the student of North American Ophiology will not find his knowledge of this subject increased by this publication. Some of the species studies are on the other hand very thorough, as for instance the genera Vipera and Naja. The revision of the synonymy of both the older and later European authors is a service for which all herpetologists will be grateful.

I mention here that the genera Malpolum, Psammophis, Mimophis and Rhamphiophis have no protrusible male intromittent organ. For this reason I propose to arrange them as a special subfamily, the Psammophiinæ.