416 Bibliographical Notice, 



Hilton Road and on Zwaartkop near Maritzburg), and tliey 

 are remarkably high and narrow, the former measuring 

 3'53 mm. high and 1"62 mm. wide. 



The dimensions referring to shells figured in the Survey 

 and herein are taken in the same positions as the shells are 

 shown in the figures ; thus the measured width of any speci- 

 men may vary considerably according to whether it is drawn 

 showing a front or a side view, especially if the labrum be 

 much expanded. 



The types of the new varieties described in this paper will 

 be placed in the British Museum. 



EXPLANATION OF PLATE X. 



Figs. 1, 2. Pupa crawfordinna (M. & P.). 



Figs. 3, 4. Pupa layardi, Bens. 



Figs. 5, 6. Pupa layardi, var. minor, Bens. ? 



Fig. 7. Pupa {Fauxulus) glanvilleana (Ancey), var. tomlini, new. 



Fig. 8. Pupa {Fauxulus) mcheaniana (M. & P.). 



Figs. 9, 10, 11, 12. Pupa (Fauxulus) ponsonbyana (Morelet). 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE. 



The Amphipoda of Bermuda. By B. W. Kunkel. Trans. Con- 

 necticut Acad. Arts and Sciences, vol. xvi. pp. 1-116 (1910). 



The tropical Amphipodous Crustacea are still so imperfectly known 

 that this account of species collected in shallow water at the 

 Bermuda Islands is very welcome. Forty -five species of Gam- 

 maridea and Caprellidea are described and figured in considerable 

 detail, of which fifteen are regarded as new, and three new genera 

 are established. No mention is made of the Hyperiidea, though it is 

 hardly to be inferred that this extensive suborder is unrepresented 

 in the Bermudan fauna. In some cases the identification of species 

 described by previous authors is not placed beyond doubt. For 

 example, the form referred on p. 10 to Amphilochus hrunneus, Delia 

 Valle, differs from the original account of that species in several of 

 the most important specific characters, but no explanation or dis- 

 cussion of the fact is given. The autlior's references to literature 

 are scanty and not always correct. For the Caprellidae he quotes 

 Mayer's Monograph of 1882, but neither the important " Nachtrag" 

 to that work published in 1890 nor the equally important " Siboga" 

 Report of the same author (1903). Verrill's description of Cyamus 

 fascicidaris is reprinted, but no attempt is made to show why the 

 species should be regarded as distinct from Cyamus pihyseteris, 

 Pouchet. W. T. C. 



