598
��soieifCB.
��[Toi. v.. Wo. IK'
��I
��ical objeote which have been round in all coun- triea, and have been <)escribed under the names of Cruziana, Ruaophjcus, etc. These are usually caatB of impressions in what was the slimy surface of a mud sheet, sometimes an inch, sometimes a tool or more, in length, by ftota one to two inches in width. A deep BuIouB traverses the middle, and the surface is roai'ked by divergent and parallel, or curi- ously reticulated and inosculating ndges.
First noticed by Dr. Locke in Ohio in 1888, and named by Vanuxem in 1842 Fucoides biloba, by D'Orblgny in 1812 Cruziana, by Rouault in 1850 Fraena, and by Hall in 1852 RuBophycuB, they have been since referred to under one or another of these namca bv most writers on geology. By the authors mentioned they were regarded as the impressions of sea- weeds; but by Dawson, Lapparent. Briart, Hobert, Hughes, Nathorst, and J. F. James they have been considered the tracks of animals. .Saporta, in the work under con- sideration, discusses their character and origin at great length. He pronounces them fucoids, and calls them Bilobites, taking the name fiom De Kay, and referring for authority to the first volume of the ' Annals of the New-York lyceum of natural historj- ' (182-1), where a paper is published hy De Kay, " On the organic remains ternied ' Biloliitea ' fixim the Catskill Monntains," illustrated with one plate aod four tigLires.
On referring to this paper, every American geolc^et will at once recognize in the fossil described, Conocardium trigouale, a character- istic molliisk of the comiferous limestone and the Schoharie grit. When the suture of this shell is exposed, the carinaled valves present an appearance which led our earlier geologisle to regard it as a crustacean iilliefl to the trilo- bite, but distinguished by having two lobes in- stead of three. De Kny, though retaining the teim ' Bitobites,' recognized its molluscous character, and its resemblance lo Cardium. From these facts it will be seen that Bilobites of De Kay has no relation wliaiever to Fu- coides biloba of Vanusem, or Cmziana of D'Orbigny, and the name has t)cen erroneously applied by Saporla. The descriptions of Vanuxem and D'Orbigny bear the same date ; but, the old genus Fucoides having been broken up and abandoned. D'Orbigny's Cruziana would seem to be the proper name for these singular objects. Hall's name, Rusophycus (called Rysophycus by Hughes as being more correct) , is apparently a. synonyme of Cruzi- ana. and, published later, must be superseded by that.
��Though we have thus obtained a amnte for these objects, their true character is as te from being demonstrated as ever, nor doea it Bcem probable that the present diversity of opinion will soon be harmonized. Everr one who has seen much of the exposures of sballow- waler sediments, shales, and flagstones, will concede that many of the so-called fucotdol markings are of mechanical origin, and will accept Nathorat's view that such casts as Eophyton and Panescorsea are inorganic. Where the cast consists of a number of diver- gent ridges springing from a common stem like branches from a trunk, such as Vexillum Sap. (which, however, can hardly be distinguished from Licrophycus of Billings), the conclusion seems inevitable that the cast is organic, and J the form is rather that of a plant than a I sponge. .M
Although so far resulting in little demon- ' stmtion, the discussion in which Saporta and Nathorat have taken the leading parts has excited much interest, and has been produt-tiv© of an important series of experiments and observations. Doubtless in this, as in nian\' other discussions. Ihe truth will be found to lie between the views of the opposing leaders, jret science will be advanced by the stimulus to inquiry furnished by these very ditTerencoa.
J. S. Newbbbrv.
��PHONONCIATIOS.
��Meeting a booh of this kind, adraiuing iuil possible utility, one naturally asks whether tliA pronunciations recommended are correct, witJi allowance for admissible variations, whether the description and representation of soaada are exact and clear, and whether the list iif words likely to be mispronounced is judicioudy made. The first and last of these questions suggest no severe criticism of this book, unles* i one considers only matters of detail. W^ | mention only one. Paragraph 5i, in the in- I troductiou, should be changed so as to moke it \ clear that by > antepenultimate vowel ' is meant that in the Latin woids i-eferred to, not in the English, as is now absurdly said.
The second question shows the weakness and unpractical plan of the book. Passing by the introduction, which shows some caref^ observation, but has several hazardous asaer^ tions, we couie to the body of the book. Here each page contains two columns, — on the right hand, the words in alphabetical order, but
��1
�� �
