li 
Dr. H. J. Hansen on the Morphology of the Limbs and Mouth- 
parts of Crustacea and Insects (Zool. Anz. 1893, and in Ann. 
Mag. N.H. 1893). In that paper, Hansen, who had carried 
out an investigation on the lines which Dr. Crampton recom- 
mends and apparently has followed, definitely put forward 
the view that the paraglossae, owing to their position and 
structure in the Thysanura and other primitive insects, 
represented a clearly distinct pair of appendages homologous 
with the first maxillae of Crustacea, and he proposed for both 
the name maxillulae. Prof. G. H. Carpenter, in more recent 
years, has brought forward further evidence in support of 
Hansen’s view, and has given a figure of the maxillula of 
Machilis; showing a complex structure and three distinct 
lobes interpreted as lacinia, galea and rudimentary palpus. 
It is astonishing that Dr. Crampton without even once referring 
to Hansen in his paper, makes Folsom “apparently re- 
sponsible ” for the view maintained by Hansen seven years 
before Folsom’s paper appeared. Dr. Crampton considers 
it to be a mistaken view; he asserts emphatically that 
the paraglossae (named superlinguae by Folsom in order to 
avoid confusion with the paraglossae of the labium, which 
are quite distinct structures) are not the homologues of the 
first maxillae of Crustacea at all, but represent their par- 
agnatha; and he suggests that the paragnatha are detached 
lobes of the first maxillae. If the latter suggestion is to be 
taken seriously it would logically follow from his argument 
that the paraglossae of insects actually do represent the first 
maxillae of Crustacea, a conclusion which apparently is not 
exactly the one at which he wishes to arrive. Hansen, whose 
knowledge of the Crustacea is not to be despised, regarded the 
paragnatha as a typical median bilobed structure homologous 
with the hypopharynx (or lingua) of insects, also a median 
structure to the base of which the maxillulae are sometimes 
attached on the inner side. With regard to the interpretation 
of the parts of the maxilla of insects, which Dr. Crampton has 
given in correction of the “ absolutely unfounded and incorrect 
statement which one encounters with disheartening regularity 
in the zoological and entomological textbooks,” he believed 
that so far at least as this country was concerned, Dr. 
