er striæ; from Hyb. reticulatus they are at once distinguished by the bluntness of the dental processes, and the divergence of the strie upon their surface: the teeth of Hyb. medius differ in the indistinctness of the division of their crowns into lobes, and in the regularity of the compressed cones which their forms exhibit. By far the greater number of species of Hybodus enumerated in the 'Poissons Fossils' are merely known by the Ichthyodorulites; and Agassiz regrets that the rare occurrence of the teeth and spines under circumstances which establish their relation to the same individual, compels him to introduce a double nomenclature. It fortunately happens in the present instance, that in addition to the frontal spine, both dorsal were also discovered. One of these is represented in the plate of the natural size, (fig. 9). Its fellow differs in being about two inches longer, in presenting a much slighter decrease in the width of the grooved sides, and in having a smaller number of denticulations. The character of these parts is so well conveyed by Mr. Sowerby's engraving, that it is unnecessary for me to enter into any minute description. In the future identification of this species, it should be borne in mind that the supposed frontal spine may be lost, while the jaws or other parts of the skeleton may be preserved; and on the other hand, this singular appendage may not improbably be common to several species of the genus. The circumstance of this fossil appearing to be generally unknown to collectors, even in a detached state, strengthens my assumption that the shark to which it belonged was not furnished with a series of these spines, and indeed perhaps indicates the rare occurrence of the particular species which it may serve to characterise. I hope the publication of this notice may draw the attention of those interested in fossil Zoology to the subject, but at present Mr. Lonsdale is the only person of those to whom the fossil in question has been shown, who had previously seen anything of the kind; and he tells me that a similar but detached fossil body, also from the lias, is preserved in the Bath Museum. Being unable to identify the present species with any one that has been described, I have called it Hybodus Delabecheii, M. De la Beche having, I believe, been the first geologist who drew attention to the fossil remains of the genus. REFERENCES TO PLATE NO. 4. Figs. 1 & 2. Tabular masses upon the borders of which the teeth are disposed. The posterior and right lateral borders extend farther than re presented in the engraving. The parts connecting the two fragments are missing. Fig. 3 is a small tooth, showing the prominent transverse ridge which marks the roots on their outer side. Fig. 4. The inner side of a larger tooth of the form which appears to characterise the species. Fig. 5, a, apparently a portion of skin without studs; e and b, studs of the natural size. (From the under surface of the mass fig. 1). Fig. 6, b, a stud magnified. Figs. 7 & 8. Two views of the supposed frontal curved spine. Fig. 9. One of the two Ichthyodorulites, or spines supporting the dorsal fins found with the jaws. REVIEWS. ART. I.-Species Général des Coléoptères. Tome 6ième. Paris, 1839. Par CH. AUBE. THE Baron Dejean, to whom we are indebted for the first five volumes of this work, comprising the Cicindelida and Carabide of his magnificent collection, having found it impossible, from his numerous political and military avocations, to continue it with regularity, has confided the descriptions of the water-beetles, composing the families Dyticide and Gyrinida, to Dr. Charles Aubé; and it is impossible to have placed the subject in better hands. Already well known by his monograph on the Pselaphide as a microscopical coleopterist, this gentleman has added greatly to his fame by this elaborate volume of upwards of 800 pages, in which nearly as many species of aquatic Coleoptera are carefully described. He has not, judiciously as we think, confined himself to the collection of Dejean, but being in correspondence with the chief European entomologists, he has been enabled to produce a volume, superior, in our opinion, not only as to the extent of its materials, but also in the style of its execution, to any of the previous volumes of the work. There are several new genera established; and amongst the species we find those described by Mr. Babington in the Transactions of the Entomological Society' adopted and referred to, but under names previously given to them by other writers. ART. II.-Zeitschrift für die Entomologie; Herausgegeben von ERNST FRIEDRICH GERMAR. Erster Band Erster Heft. 8vo. 196 pp. 2 plates. Leipzig, 1839. HAVING just received from the author a copy of this work, we hasten to announce its appearance, being convinced that the re-appearance of the venerable Germar, the friend of Latreille and Leach, will be hailed with satisfaction by our readers.In this, the first number of a work similar in character to his 'Magasin der Entomologie,' are contained memoirs of various groups of insects by the editor and others. They are as follows. 1. A Memoir upon the Scutelleride, by M. Germar, in which a great number of species of this interesting group, together with several new genera, are described, and in which we find the works of Burmeister, Guérin, &c., and the synoptical catalogue of Mr. Hope, carefully cited. 2. A Monograph on the genus Mantissa, by Dr. Erichson, preceded by various considerations as to the place occupied by this anomalous genus, together with descriptions of twenty-four species. We may here take occasion to observe that the author has not consulted the last volume of the 'Encyclopédie Méthodique,' (wherein his Mant. chalybea has been previously described under the name of Mant. semihyalina), nor the Entomological Magazine,' in which a species has been described by Mr. Newman: neither is the author acquainted with any Australian species, of which, however, we are aware of the existence. 3. Memoir on the chemical composition of the fatty matter and oily secretion of lepidopterous insects, by Professor Döbner, of Augsburg. 4. Descriptions of three new genera of Cicadida, by Dr. Germar: 1st, Clastoptera, near Penthimia, seven American species: 2nd, Xerophloea, near Gypona, oue Brazilian species: 3rd, Phylloscelis, near Eurybrachis, two Pennsylvanian species. ART. III.-The Natural History of the Sperm Whale. By THOMAS BEALE, late Surgeon to the Kent' and 'Sarah and Elizabeth' South-Seamen. London: Van Voorst, 1839. THE author of this work is favourably known as the writer of a brief sketch of the natural history of the sperm whale which was published three or four years since; and the information which he then communicated to the public in the shape of a pamphlet, has been re-printed, and now comes before us in the more important character of a volume. Since the publication of his first edition it appears that Mr. Beale has examined the skeleton of a cachalot in the possession of Sir Clifford Constable, near Hull, and has thereby been enabled to draw VOL. III.-No. 29. N. s. 2 D up a detailed description of its osteology; and by freely availing himself of the labours of his predecessors in his account of the soft parts, he has thrown together a good summary of all that is known respecting the anatomical history of this gigantic mammal. His remarks upon the habits &c. of the cachalot, are clearly the result of careful and well-directed observation; and though here and there a few passages are penned a little in the book-making' style, yet the volume, upon the whole, is a very creditable production, and in some respects a highly acceptable contribution to the science of Zoology. Mr. Beale is perfectly satisfied that he has never encountered more than one species of sperm whale, and that the Physeter macrocephalus of authors, which he tells us has yet "to assume the station to which it is entitled in the history of animated nature." It seems that Cuvier and a host of other distinguished savans who have taken upon themselves to write about the sperm whale, have made all sorts of misrepresentations in their attempts to describe this cetacean, and the absurdity of the greater part of their lucubrations is shown up by Mr. Beale in the most able and praiseworthy manner. Our author indeed plainly shows that in handling the subject he is no respector of persons; and Sir William Jardine, or even the great Linnæus, come in for a rap, if he thinks they have done ought to merit castigation. Mr. Beale's observations agree in their essential points with those of Mr. F. Debell Bennett, published in the 'Proceedings of the Zoological Society' for 1837; and our author has therefore the merit of priority. On the subject of the ejection of a column of water from the spiracle, which has long been a matter in dispute, we have the following remarks.— "Out of the thousands of sperm whales which I have seen during my wanderings in the south and north Pacific Oceans, I have never observed one of them to eject a column of water from the nostril. I have seen them at a distance, and I have been within a few yards of several hundreds of them, and I never saw water pass from the spout-hole. But the column of thick and dense vapour which is certainly ejected, is exceedingly likely to mislead the judgment of the casual observer in these matters; and this column does indeed appear very much like a jet of water, when seen at a distance of one or two miles on a clear day, because of the condensation of the vapour, which takes place the moment it escapes from the nostril, and its consequent opacity, which makes it appear of a white colour, and which is not observed when the whale is close to the spectator, and then it appears only like a jet of white steam; the only water in addition is the small quan. tity that may be lodged in the external fissure of the spout-hole, when the animal raises it above the surface to breathe, and which is blown up into the air with the spout, and may probably assist in condensing the vapour of which it is formed. |