BRITISH CRUSTACEA. 99 



Popular History of British Crustacea. By Adam White, F.L.S., &c. 

 Royal 16mo. Twenty Coloured Plates. By G. B. Sowerby. 358 pages. 

 10s. 6d. London. L. Reeve. 



One of the most comprehensive of the many useful hand-books published in 

 this series ; short descriptions of four hundred species of Crustacea being 

 given, and figures, more or less characteristic, of ninety-six, some of them 

 now figured for the first time. No pains have been spared to render this 

 work as complete a manual as possible, and the author has, we must say, 

 succeeded in laying before the student an almost complete picture of the 

 Crustacea of the seas around Britain and the Channel Islands. When we 

 recollect that to this end he was compelled to wade through the natural 

 history magazines and transactions for the past fifteen or twenty years, 

 we can form some idea of the difficulties to be surmounted, and of the 

 valuable time which such a book as this will save to the enquirer. The 

 characters of the species are for the most part brief, but generally sufficiently 

 diagnostic to enable us to identify any species. In one or two instances 

 pleasant details of habits have been judiciously introduced. The number 

 of new species here incorporated in the British lists are many, but time 

 and want of means of comparison with published lists preclude our notic- 

 ing more than a few. In the decapods we have, Scyllarius arctus, Alpheus 

 affinis, Autonomea Olivii, Hippolyte fascigera, Grayana, Mitchelli, Whitei^ 

 Yarrellii, Barleei, and pusiola (as H. Andre wsii), Crangon Allmanni, Mysis 

 Lamorna, productus, Oberon, and a new but unnamed species. Seven species 

 of Diastylidae are noticed, nearly all additional to the species in " Bell's 

 British Crustacea." Among the Amphipods we find the following, which 

 had escaped the notice of Spence Bate : — Opis typica, Anonyx elegans, 

 Unciola irrorata, Amphithoe obtusata. Among the Entomostraca many 

 additions will be found, but space forbids our noticing them. The only 

 fault we have to find consists in what we must (in the majority of cases) 

 look on as a needless change in the nomenclature generally adopted in this 

 country, and although this has arisen from a rigorous adherence to the 

 laws of priority, yet we cannot help thinking that such changes as Arc- 

 topsis for Pisa, Potamobius for Astacus, and, worse still, Astacus for Ho- 

 rn arus, are extremely injudicious. 



Very few would recognise under the names of Astacus Gammarus and 

 Potamobius fluviatilis the Homaris vulgaris and Astacus fluviatilis of 

 most modem authors ; and surely the crayfish has as good a right to the 

 name Astacus as the lobster. There are, in our mind, just as many inju- 

 dicious changes among the specific names, but these we pass over. It is 



