There can be no question of the importance of the subjects treated of in this paper; and the results are certainly such as to attract attention. This fact makes it all the more disappointing that the author's method is not calculated to inspire confidence in the accuracy of his conclusions. Before attempting to justify this statement, we may give a brief account of the paper as it stands.

After giving an extensive bibliography, the author passes on in his second chapter to a statement of the method of the investigation, and of the notation by which he finds it necessary to state his results. In the next chapter a table is given showing the extent of variation of particular characters in the species considered, and the degree in which the variations of these same characters in both forms may coincide. The influence of sex and age, and the character and development of the scales, is next treated of, and the following chapter is devoted to a statement of the differences which obtain between the different “local forms” in the North Sea and the Baltic. The rest of the paper is taken up with a consideration of the relations between the local forms and the species, an account of Pleuronectes pseudoflesus, certain morphological and biological observations, and a summary of results. We may now consider the more important parts of this paper in detail,

The method of investigation consisted in examining “a large number” of specimens of each species in respect of no less than thirty-six characters.