106 Miscellaneous. 



Reptile, the Bicynodon, imbedded with this flora* ; — so that the 

 pecuHar association above-indicated for India and North America 

 obtains there also, 



lu pointing out these facts of the geological and geographical dis- 

 tribution of the fossil Estheria, I merely touch upon the salient 

 points of an interesting subject of research, — for the elucidation of 

 which careful inquiry at home and abroad is still requisite. 



In conclusion, altbough the recent Estheria is a marine Crustacean, 

 yet, since very closely allied forms are of freshwater habits, and since 

 among bivalved Entomostracans different species of a genus and even 

 the individuals of a species occasionally live either in marine or 

 in fresh water, there is no certain evidence afforded by the fossil in 

 question whether the so-called Triassic deposits in which it is found 

 were formed in rivers, lakes, or seas. — Journal of the Geological 

 Society for November 18.56. 



On the Genus Cuma. By C. Spence Bate, F.L.S. 



The study of the Diastylidce certainly led in my mind to a very 

 different conclusion from that which, judging from the remarks in the 

 September Number of Silliman's Journal, it has produced in Prof. 

 Agassiz'. I think, moreover, that since he admits the Biastylis 

 Rathkii to be an adult animal, because it has been taken with young, 

 he must have overlooked Mr. Goodsir's statement, that he had taken 

 Cuma Scorpioidesf (Mont.) with spawn (ova), which he describes 

 as very large and of a bright straw colour. This appears to be an 

 argument of equal force to prove that Cuma is adult. 



In my humble judgment, the fact of Prof. Agassiz having taken 

 his specimens from Macroura, is evidence that they could not be 

 CumcB — that is, the genus of Edwards and Goodsir. 



With regard to the affinity between the young of 3Iacroura and 

 Cuma, I append a portion of an interesting letter which I received 

 from R. Q. Couch, Esq., whose knowledge of the larval forms of the 

 decapod Crustacea is second to no living carcinologist. I have taken 

 the liberty to italicise one passage : — 



" Penzance, August lltli, 1856. 

 " I have been very much occupied on the larval state of our 

 decapod Crustaceans, in furtherance of a re-examination of the whole 

 subject. It cannot be a matter of surprise that the genera Cuma, 

 Alauna, Bodotria, &c. should a priori be thought to be the young 

 of the higher Crustacea. I confess I suspected it myself for some 

 time, but gave it up many months ago, and my opinions are fully 

 confirmed by the valuable observations in your paper. My views 

 were grounded on the fact, that / 7iever met with any of these forms 



* Trans. Geol. Sec. 2nd series, vol. vii. part 4. p. 227, note. 



t It must be remembered that in the species Cuma Scorpioides of 

 Montagu, I have included the C. Audouinii of Edwards and the C. Edwardsii 

 of Goodsir. 



