Dihliogrnphical Notice. 505 



Tt is pclf-cviileiit tli:it it will be a difficult task to compare 

 Avitli a K'g ail apjjeiidage so entirely traiisf"orrne(l. The 

 nltcmpts in this direction which have been undertaken in 

 various ways by mysclt" and other investi<;;ator.s must be 

 re^^arded as having- failed, yet I think that I am now able to 

 c< ni|iare and name the joints of the mandibles correctly. 



I made a ])reparation ot" a mandil)le of an Uropoda a/ricatin, 

 Ondms. This was composed of all known joints. It exhi- 

 bited a trapezoidal coxa, a short trochanter, and a lon^^er 

 femur, which is united by means of two lateral condyles with 

 a still longer genu; the latter, again, is connected by a 

 dorsal condyle with the tibia, which carries the tarsus proxi- 

 nially iji a pit on its ventral surface! 



In the Parasitidic, therelbre, the jjroximal cylindrical joint 

 is ibrn)ed of the united coxa, trochanter, and femur, and the 

 second joint of the united genu and tibia, while the last joint, 

 the digitus mobilis of the chela, rejjresents the tarsus. I go 

 still further, and see in the ventral, |)roximal, and internal 

 copulatory organ of the male Paiasitida3 an analogue of the 

 above-described furcate hair of the tarsus palparum. 



In cases in which the mandible consists of only two joints 

 (e.ff. in the Labidostomidati, Bdellida', Oribatidaj, and Acarid») 

 the first joint is consequently to be regarded as a fusion of 

 the coxa, trochanter, femur, genu, and tibia, while the digitus 

 mobilis re[)iescnts merely the tarsus. 



BIBLIOGKArHICAL NOTICE. 



Dariiinhm and the Protihms of Life. By Conrad Gckxtuer, PIlD., 

 I'rofcsgor at the I'liiversity of rrciburg in fJaden. Triiiislatcd 

 from the Tliird Edition by Ju.sEru ^IcCabk. London : A. Owcu 

 & Co., 1906. 



The author tells us tliat "the present work had its origin in an 

 attempt to appreciate the range, tlie foundation, and the value 

 of evolutionary theories." This attempt accomplished, to his own 

 satisfaction, ho expresses a desire so to jirescnt the facts that lie 

 lias garnered as to enable " nature hirself . . . [to] teach the reader 

 the truth of evolution." 



But we venture to think that tlie autlior has by no means 

 attained his amliition. His presentation of Darwinism is lahoured, 

 amateurish, and occasionally grotesque ! 



The translator is obviously not a zoologist, and to him probably 



