1895. SOME NEW BOOKS. 353 



consider the origin of the " jointlets " than their acquired character. 

 In passing, it may be noticed that Dr. H. J. Hansen advocates the 

 view that the hmb is typically not seven-jointed but eight-jointed. 

 There is apparently no evidence to show what number of segments it 

 started with, but in the present stage of its evolution it would seem to 

 be a matter of convenience to describe it as seven-jointed, although, 

 as I have said elsewhere, it must "be noticed that there are Crustacea 

 in which one or other of the joints, most often the fifth, is itself 

 multiarticulate, thus adding to the normal number, w^iich, on the 

 other hand, is still more frequently diminished by coalescence, 

 absorption, or complete failure of development aftecting various parts 

 of the limb." 



Were there space it would be pleasant to quote the whole of Dr. 

 List's description of the way in which CalUanassa suhterranea (Montagu) 

 constructs its tunnel in fine sand beneath the water. The relations of 

 form in this eccentric-looking crustacean are, as he says, very 

 unintelligible until eye-witness of its mode of working has shown how 

 its resources, fit though few, result in a truly wonderful piece of 

 architecture. Thomas R. R. Stebbing. 



" I DO Perceive here a Divided Duty." 



Brachiopods (Recent). By A. E. Shipley. Brachiopods (Fossil). By- 

 F. R. C. Reed. Being pp. 461-512 of vol. iii. of the "Cambridge Natural 

 History." London : Macmillan, 1895. Price of the volume 17s. nett. 



To the section of this volume that deals with MoUusca, and was 

 reviewed in the September number of Natural Science, the 

 chapters now to be considered are in marked contrast. Mr. 

 Cooke's contribution attracts the naturalist by its account of the 

 habits and economy of living animals ; the part for which Messrs. 

 Shipley and Reed are responsible will be more welcome to the 

 student of anatomy and palaeontology. Of a truth " brachiopods ait, 

 nature!,''' even when idealised by Bret Harte, hardly lend themselves 

 to a light anecdotal touch, nor do they serve as popular illustrations 

 of the wonders of nature. The Cambridge naturalists have therefore 

 sought — and what is more, have found — their success in a clear and 

 up-to-date exposition of the Morphology, Embryology, Ontogeny, 

 and Phylogeny of the group. Hard words, my masters ! but they 

 break no bones, and in the hands of Messrs. Shipley and Reed are 

 not so terrible as the amateur might think. The subject is still 

 further elucidated by figures as superior to the ordinary cliches as 

 were those of the Mollusca ; among them the sagittal section of 

 Cistella (p. 470) and the view of Spivifev (p. 501) are specially to be 

 commended. It does not detract from the value of the former figure 

 that Mr. Shipley cannot make up his mind whether Cistella is a 

 subgenus of Avgiope (p. 472, top line), or Avgiope a subgenus of 

 Cistella (fig. 314, legend, and p. 479), or whether Cistella and Avgiope 

 are two independent genera (pp. 470, 479, 487). A " mere systema- 

 tist " would tell Mr. Shipley that the name Avgiope belongs to a spider, 

 and that the brachiopod species mentioned under that name have 

 been referred to Cistella, with the exception oi Avgiope decollata, which 

 is a Megathyvis. Similarly, Mr. Reed ! Magellania is not a subgenus 

 of Waldheimia ; what you meant to say was Magellania (olim Wald- 

 heimia) flavescens. These things are trifles, but the editors of the 

 " Cambridge Natural History " should remember that they cause the 

 wicked to blaspheme. 



