508 Bibliographical Notices. 



toneura, we find that the contents of these two great sections are 

 positively identical with those of Cuvier's Radiata. The Flat-worms 

 {Cestodea and Trematoda) are placed amongst the Acrita, and the 

 Round-worms amongst the Nematoneurn, and the latter division also 

 contains the Bryozoa, Rotifera and Epizoa. The retention of the 

 latter in such a situation is certamly calculated to astonish one, con- 

 sidering how well established is the close resemblance, we might 

 almost say identity, between the young state of these anomalous para- 

 sites and the Entomostracous Crustacea ; and we must confess that 

 we cannot understand why the class of Epizoa should be condemned 

 to figure so low in the scale of animal existences, whilst the epizootic 

 genus Nicofho'e occupies an aristocratic position amongst the Crus- 

 tacea. Equally iuadmissible is the })Osition assigned to the Cirrho- 

 poda amongst the Ileteroyangliata (or MoUusca), in spite of the 

 positive demonstration that we possess of their Anuulose nature ; — 

 indeed we can only impute the retention of this unfortunate group of 

 Crustaceans amongst such unsuitable neighbours, to some confusion 

 of ideas on the ])art of Professor Rymer Jones, as he actually figures 

 a complete Homogangliate nervous system as characteristic of the 

 Cirrhopods, and places them in his list of the Homogangliate (or 

 Anuulose) Classes, at the end of his general chapter on Classification. 

 It would almost seem as though Professor Rymer Jones were of 

 opinion that the position of the Cirrhopoda in the Animal Kingdom 

 might as well be settled by the ingenious device of tossing up, pro- 

 posed, as we are told, by some truly American Statesman for the 

 adjustment of the little difficulties existing between this country and 

 the United States. 



We should hardly have dwelt at such length upon these defects 

 in a work which notwithstanding them possesses a great claim to 

 consideration, but for the circumstance that the author leaves it to 

 be inferred by his reader that the system adopted in it is the system, 

 whilst he must be well aware that, so far from its being adopted by 

 the majority of zoologists and comparative anatomists, it furnishes 

 anvthiug but a true picture of the generally received views of zoo- 

 logical classification. But the reader may seek in vain in the pages 

 of this thick volume for anything like an admissiou that a different 

 mode of arrangement is practicable, or for a confession that other 

 writers place particular groups in a position different from that as- 

 signed to them by Professor Jones, — the nearest approach to any- 

 thing of the kind consisting in references to resemblances between 

 the Epizoa and Rotifera and the Ci-ustacea, and a statement re- 

 garding the Cirrhopoda, that "it will not be surprising, if, after 

 reading the details connected with their structure, some naturalists 

 should prefer to regard them as belonging to the Homogangliate 

 rather than to the Heterogangliate division." ^^'e should think it by 

 no means surprising ; but we are rather surprised that, when he went 

 so far, our author could not tell his readers, that the conclusion at 

 which he more than half expected them to arrive was the one now 

 generally adopted by the first zoologists both at home and abroad. 



It may be urged, that as Professor Rymer Jones's work only pro- 



