76 . Bibliographical Notices. 
dividual work of the contributors. We feel bound, however, to sug- 
gest that Dr. von Martens should be kept better informed in future 
as to what has been published on the Mollusca in Great Britain. No 
allusion whatever is made in his report to the second volume of 
Jeffreys’s ‘ British Conchology’*, nor to the elaborate ‘“ Report of the 
Mollusca of the West Coast of North America,” by Mr. P. Carpenter, 
published in the ‘ Reports of the British Association.’ Moreover 
Messrs. Alder and Hancock’s anatomical and descriptive account of the 
** Nudibranchiate Mollusca of India,”’ which is most carefully worked 
out and beautifully illustrated (Trans. Linn. Soc.), is passed by 
without a comment; and the reader would suppose, from appended 
observations, that a much less important paper of Angas and Crosse 
“On the Nudibranchiata of Port Jackson” was the more valuable con- 
tribution to science. We are at a loss, moreover, in Dr. von Mar- 
tens’s report, to know which of the species mentioned are new to 
science and which are not so. 
In undertaking a report on the Insecta, Mr. Dallas bent his back 
to a giant’s labour, and well he has borne it. No less than 256 pages 
are occupied by his report, and yet uo portion of the volume gives 
evidence of greater care, has its matter in more closely condensed form, 
or, we may add, is more methodically and clearly analyzed andarranged. 
We look upon the production of the present volume as of the very 
highest importance. It is an honour to the country in which it is 
published. It reflects still greater honour upon Dr. Gunther and 
his brother labourers who have originated the ‘ Record.’ Let our 
readers bear in mind that such ode as this is cannot be carried on 
unless it has a large sale. We do not think that we shall be stating 
the case too strongly if we say that every one interested in the pro- 
gress of our science ought to be a purchaser of the ‘ Zoological 
Record: as a matter of duty, even if it should not be to Agnes it 
can scarcely fail to be—a matter of self-interest. 
Dr. Giinther requests in his preface ‘‘ suggestions which may tend 
to the improvement and perfection of the ‘ Record ;’” here, then, 
are one or two trifles :— 
1. That the exact date—that is, the month and day—when a 
paper is read or published should, where practicable, be given. This 
has been done by some of the contributors, but not by all. 
2. That the names of new genera should be printed in a distinctive 
type, and should always commence a sentence, and not be for the 
first time introduced in the middle of a paragraph—for example, 
compare pages 308 and 408. 
3. That an index be given of all the new genera described during 
the year. This would be of great use for the student who wishes 
to ascertain whether a name which he is about to propose is preoc- 
cupied or not. 
The Rev. W. A. Leighton, F. L.S., is preparing for publication 
a Synopsis of British Lichens. 
* We have since noticed that this volume, which was published in the 
middle of the year 1864, nevertheless bears the date 1863 on the title- 
page. This circumstance may perhaps have misled Dr. von Martens. 
