ENTOMOSTRACA OF MINNESOTA. 43 



Fischer, who contributed not a little to our knowledge of the dis- 

 tribution of fresh-water Cladocera, was the next to describe valid spe- 

 cies. He described the species found near Moscow and St. Peters- 

 burg, Eussia. 



The justly famous Swedish naturalist, W. Lilljeborg, who has left 

 his mark on so many branches of natural science, has not neglected 

 the microscopic Crustacea of his fatherland. Om de inom Skaanefoere- 

 Jcommande Crustaceer af ordningarne Cladocera, Ostracoda och CopejJoda, 

 is the somewhat formidable title of his work, published in 1855. He 

 recognized the following genera of Copepoda: Diaptomus, Temora, Bias, 

 Ichtyop>ho7'ba, Tisbe, Tachidius, Ilarjiacticus, Cantliocamptus, and Cyclops. 

 A species each of Diap)tomm and Canthocamptus is described, and 

 two species of Cyclops. (It would seem from authors' quotations that 

 other species are described in an appendix, but the copy I have seen 

 lacks this.) The author who has done most for micro-carcinology in 

 general is Carl Claus of Vienna. His principal works are: 



1. Das Genus Cyclops, etc. In Wiegmann's Archiv fur NaturgescMchtey 

 1857. 



2. Weitere Mittheilungen ueber die einheimischen Cyclopiden. The same, 

 1857. 



3. Die Freilebenden Copepoden, 1863. 



The later work especially is indispensable to the student of Cojte- 

 poda, though in reality it is more important in respect to marine Co- 

 pepoda. 



In the meantime a work appeared in iN'orwegian, with Latin de- 

 scriptions, from the pen of G. O. Sars. This has been largely over- 

 looked. It is, unfortunately, unaccompanied by plates, but the de- 

 scriptions bear the stamp of the naturalist. 



A little later a second brief contribution from this author was pub- 

 lished, but I have not seen it. 



Sir John Lubbock in 1863 describes species of fresh-water Copepo- 

 da, but the publication seems no longer necessary. 



Heller, in Tyrol, Fric, in Bohemia, and Uljanin, in Asia, have 

 studied the Copepod fauna. 



A Russian paper by Poggenpol and Uljanin is quoted as A Cata- 

 logue of the Copepoda, Cladocera and Ostracoda of the vicinity of Moscow, 

 by Rehberg, and as from the Protoholle der kais.-naturw. anthropol. und 

 ethnogr. Ges. in MosJcau, but by Cragin, who publishes a translation 

 apparently of the same paper in part, as from the Bulletin of the 

 Friends of Natural History. 



Hoek, in the Tijdschrift der Nederlandsche DierJcundige Vereeniging 

 {Magazine of the Zoological Society of the Netherlands), 1875, and later in 

 Ger man in the Niederldndisches Archiv fiir Zoologie, gave excellen t 



