252 7 NATURAL SCIENCE [October 
‘accessory branchiae’ in certain amphipoda to which the late: 
Professor Wrzesniowski first called attention. In appearance: 
Anaspides not only has seven thoracic segments distinct as in the 
Amphipoda, but also a segment immediately in front of these 
distinct. Here, however, Mr Calman maintains that the appearance: 
is delusive, and that we have only. to do with the well-knowm 
cervical groove of the carapace. He may be right. He may be 
wrong. The suggestion is certainly very ingenious. It would be 
inconvenient here to follow him into the details of so technical a 
question, or through the important comparison which he institutes 
between Anaspides and the palaeozoic crustacea, Palaeocaris, Gamp- 
sonyx, and Acanthotelson. To all seeming, however, Acanthotelson is 
much nearer to the isopod genus Apseuwdes than to a schizopod, and 
the figures of Packard’s restoration would have been better omitted, 
since they do not agree either with the original figures of the fossils 
or with the description given in the text. Meek’s figures (Geological 
Survey of Illinois, vol. II1., p. 549, etc., 1868) probably give all the. 
information that can be depended upon. 
Professor G. O. Sars (12) is bringing out in rapid succession 
the parts of his Isopoda of Norway, always with the fulness of 
satisfying illustration and exact description for which his work is 
celebrated, throwing a flood of light upon groups, such, for example, 
as the minute species of Munna, which before were puzzling and 
obscure. In his account of the Anthuridae he does not notice, and has 
perhaps forgotten, the view taken by Dohrn and Gerstaecker, and later 
brought into prominence by Dr Charles Chilton (5), that in this. 
family the longer branch of the tail-feet or uropods is not the inner 
branch, as authors have generally supposed, but in accordance rather: 
with homology than appearance, the outer branch. Dr Chilton also. 
doubts whether this longer branch is ever really two-jointed, though 
it is open to maintain that it is sometimes actually and always vir- 
tually so. These are points on which the Norwegian professor’s ex-. 
pressly declared opinion would be of much value. For the correct. 
name of the very common Isopod, generally known as Jdotea tricus-. 
pidata Desmarest, Professor Sars selects ‘Zdothea baltica (Pallas). As. 
the synonymy of this species was exhaustively investigated by 
Harger in 1878, by Miers in 1881, and by Dollfus in 1895, it is. 
amusing to note that, in the name finally adopted by each, they alll 
differ from Sars and each one from the other. Harger was unable 
to consult Pallas’ work. He therefore acknowledges that Meinert 
(1877) may have rightly regarded Oniseus balthicus Pallas as the 
earliest name of the species. The generic name Jdotea came into. 
the world with one letter missing, and this same much victimised 
letter is found as a superfluity in the specific name balthicus, so 
that Jdotea balthica (Pallas) will be the form upheld by those of 
