204 Bibliographical Notices. 
Genus Lisgocaris, Clarke, 1882. One species. 
Aptuchopsis, Barrande, 1872. One species. 
Dictyocaris, Salter, 1860. Two species. 
Dithyrocaris, Scouler (Argas), 1835. Five species. 
Rachura, Scudder, 1878. One species. 
This list would be much augmented on revision up to present 
date. Several of M. Barrande’s Bohemian forms, such as -Aristozoe 
and its allies, evidently will have to be grouped with Mr. Whit- 
field’s Echinocaris. 
Part VIII. (pp. 453-458) is a long and useful bibliography, but 
not quite perfect as to fossil Phyllopods. An Appendix follows 
with—C. Th. von Siebold, On the parthenogenesis and artificial 
rearing of the Brine-shrimp (p. 463); C. F. Gissler, On partheno- 
genesis in Artemia (p. 466); and W. J. Schmankewitsch, On the 
transformation of Artemia salina to A. Muchlhausenii and to Bran- 
chipus (p. 466). 
Thirty-seven carefully drawn lithographic plates and numerous 
good woodcuts, illustrating this valuable Monograph, show the 
details of the external and internal structure of the numerous 
genera and species described. 
A Monograph of the Insectivora, Systematic and Anatomical. By 
G. E. Dozson, M.A., F.R.S. Part i. 1882. Part 11. 1883. 
London. to. 
Dr. Doxson is laying up for himself a store of heavy gratitude from 
all well-minded zoologists ; but, however excellent their dispositions, 
there are some who will envy him. The author of the admirable 
‘Catalogue of the Chiroptera in the Collection of the British Mu- 
seum’ is now, with the assistance of the Government-Grant Com- 
mittee of the Royal Society, writing a monograph on the very group 
of mammals that above all deserve it; for it is among the Insec- 
tivora that we find the most generalized forms of the group, and 
suggestions as to higher structural characters which are nowhere 
repeated. 
He will not be envied for having undertaken a difficult task, but 
for the wisdom with which he devotes his leisure and his opportu- 
nities to the production of a monograph worthy of thename. From 
one circumstance or another most students of zoology find themselves 
the writers of scattered though in some cases very valuable essays. 
But these are, with rare exceptions, not the works that have a per- 
manent value for science; it is only when they are focussed that 
their proper proportions are seen. 
If we take a survey of the past we find this amply illustrated by 
the works of Cuvier, of Meckel, and of Owen in the great depart- 
ment of anatomical inquiry, in the impetus given to systematic 
zoology by the publications of the British Museum and of the Mu- 
seum of Comparative Zoology at Cambridge, U.S. A., and in the 
promising field of geographical distribution by the great work of 
Wallace. These are examples of comprehensive works which, with 
others that will be easily recalled, have had as much influence for 
