as now knowD, indicates that the geniie repre* BODts a distinct family of pcrissodactyl ungu- lates, the CorypbodOQtidac. The skull is clearly of this type, and the skeleton and feet present no dilferences sufficiently important to justify a separation from that natural order" (Amer. joum, k. and arts, 3d ser. vol. xiv. p. 84). Yet in the present volume he adopts the order under the name of Amblydactyla, But the proposed new terms, Amblydactyla, Cory- phodontia, Holodactyla, and CUnodactyla, ai'e all synonymes of earlier names, and cannot be
��The plates of this volume are beyond aH praise. They are drawn with the utmost fidel- ity, and at the same time are moat beautiful specimens of artistic skill. In this respect they may challenge comparison tvith anj' simi- lar work. The printing and type leave nothii^ to be desired, and the numerous finely executed woodcuts add much to the clearness of the text. Notwithstanding, then, all that we have Tound to criticise, ' The Dinocerata ' is a splendid piece of work, which is an honor to Amcricati scientific enterprise.
���adopted. This volume is, we believe, unique among modern scientific works in not contain- ing a single reference in the text to the work of others, and the render never knows how much of the liook has already been anticipated. There is, it is true, a scrupulously exhaustive biblit^aphy appended ; but, as few can plod through such a mass of pamphlets, injustice cannot be avoided by this method.
In conclusion, a few words as to the classifi- cation of the Dinocerata. The genus first to be named was tite Uintathcrium of Leidy : the Tinoceras and Dinoceras of Marsh, and the tiOxolophodou andl<kibasileusof Cope, were de- scribed at laterdates. As far as the evidence in this volume goes, these names all refer to the same genus, which, of course, must be called Uiulatherium. The shortness of this article will not allow us to attempt to prove this prop- osition, but we believe it capable of satisfactory demonstration. It ia, however, a matter of sliglit ]m[K)rtance.
��REPORT OF THE If. S. ENTOMOLOOISt FOR IS&i.
Workers in economic entomology look for ward with especial interest to the appearaiM of the annual report of the U. S, eutomolof^' The bureau under his charge is the onl3' iid stitution devoted to this department of sctenoi which is tit>erally supported ; and therefore ] is rightly expected that this reiwrt shall be tl most important contribution to applied entd mology during the year.
The report before us, contained in the repoifl of the department of agriculture for 1884(1 consists of a hundred and thirty-four pages, f illustrated by ten plates. The more importaiA I articles in the body of the report trett of.B kerosene emulsions, the streaked cottonwool J leaf-beetle, the southern buffalo gnat, and ( uranberry-fniit worm. There are appended 1 the main report several reports by speciaLl agents.
The article of most general interest is thai
�� �
