Bibliographical Notice. 491 
those classes on which the previously named gentlemen had last year 
reported, as well as the Coelenterata and Protozoa. 
We would especially call the attention of the editors of scientific 
journals and that of the secretaries of the learned societies to a very 
important plea urged by Dr. Giinther in his Preface. Probably there 
is no zoologist among our readers who has been in the habit of 
writing on any branch of natural history who has not experienced 
the gr reat inconvenience which arises from the fact that the separate 
copies of authors’ papers have, in this country, always been repaged, 
instead of retaining, as they ought to do, the original pagination 
either alone or side by side with “the repaging of the separate pam- 
phlet. In order to quote such papers, therefore, it has hitherto been 
necessary to refer to the journal from which each paper has been 
extracted. Now such additionally required reference is in all cases 
attended with inconvenience, and to the naturalist resident in the 
country often impossible. The result is (a paper received by us this 
very morning supplies an instance), when such authors’ copies are in 
the hands of subsequent writers they are frequently treated and 
referred to as separate publications, and no allusion whatever is 
made to the original work in which the paper appeared, and where 
alone it can be generally consulted. Most warmly, then, would we 
commend the suggestion of Dr. Giinther, that, ‘‘as regards separate 
reprints of papers from Journals, Proceedings, or Transactions of 
learned societies, a most excellent plan, adopted for many years by 
the K. K. Zoolog.-botanische Gesellschaft of Vienna, and lately by 
the Zoological Society of London, should be more generally followed, 
viz. that of indicating the original pagination. either at the bottom of 
the page or at the top within brackets. The value of separate copies 
is much increased thereby, as the time wasted in searching for the 
original pages is saved.” 
In the following table we give, first, the number of pages which 
relate to each class of animals in the volume before us, and, “secondly, 
within brackets, the number of pages in the original publications 
of which the foregoing supply an abstract :— 
Mammalia........ 53 (2400) Insecta. .tsccicces 330 (14500) 
BMVOR F415 18 20 3. ote 85 (3500) Annelida sissies. 28 ~=(800) 
Reptilia ...6.++.: » 24 (1800) Seolecida si iseies 12 (450) 
PPARGES «13. <8 Ace 2 48 (5100) Echinodermata..., 17 (600) 
WEGIEUSCE) oy 58 ein 87 (4400) Ceelenterata ...... 16 (750) 
Molluscoida ...... 8 (300) Protozo0a® s.5..0% 14 (1050) 
Crustacea ...,.... 60 (1500) 
Arachnida and é 
Myriopoda...... pees) 
It would be easy enough, no doubt, for a reviewer to find points 
for criticism as to imperfection in the analysis given of some particu- 
lar work or paper, or to cavil at some expression of opinion on the 
part of the Recorder himself; but to do this would be most unfair. 
It would be difficult to find men more competent for their work than 
the several Recorders have proved themselves to be ; and it is mere 
