Bihliographical Notices. 129 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL XOTICES. 



The Zoolor/kal Record for 1880 (voL xvii.). 

 Edited hy E. C. IIye. London : 1881. 



Zoolofjisclier Jahreshericht fiir 1880, 

 Redigirt von Prof. J, Yict. Caktjs. Leipzig: 1881. 



It is with very great satisfaction that we are able to report that 

 the two zoological records (proper) for the year 1880 appeared 

 before the end of the year 1881. We shall not here take any notice 

 of the reports which appear as part of the ' Archiv fiir jS'atur- 

 geschichte ;" for they have acquired an antiquarian right to appear 

 whensoever they please, llivalry has shown itself to be so far ad- 

 vantageous that the early appearance of what we will call the 

 Xaples ' Ilecord ' for 1871* has given a new, and a needed, impetus to 

 the more speedy publication of the volume which appears under the 

 auspices of the Zoological Record Association. 



^^'hen we look in a broad way at what is to be expected from 

 an effort of this kind, the first question we have to ask ourselves 

 is as to the scope of such a work ; from a theoretical point of view, 

 we expect anatomical, embryological, and palKontological studies to 

 be no less recognized than the work of the descriptive and syste- 

 matic zoologist. When we examine it from a practical point of 

 view we find that, in addition to these requirements, we have to 

 demand compendiousness, facility of reference, and peculiar attention 

 to such points as might easily escape a worker in a narrow groove. 

 It is not so necessary to refer in detail to Prof. Huxley's work on 

 the gills of crayfish as to an obscure notice of rare species in a 

 journal with a limited circulation : no student of carcinology can 

 fail to hear of the one ; but it is far from all that will, from more 

 general sources, become acquainted with the existence of a paper by 

 Mr. Haswell on some new Amphipods from Australia and Tasmania. 

 Compendiousness is hardly to be associated with a detailed state- 

 ment of every fossil fish or coral ; and that work is more particu- 

 larly undci taken by the ' Geological Record.' Thus, then, we find 

 that the English ' Recoi-d,' of which the 17th volume has now ap- 

 peared, and which has been under the care of such practised and 

 practical workers as Dr. Giinther, Prof. Newton, and Mr. Rye, has 

 dealt with anatomical and palicontological study in much less detail 

 than with the ever-growing and overpowering force of the descrip- 

 tions of new forms. On the other hand, the Xaples ' Record ' takes 

 all zoology for its province. As it has thus put itself into rivalry 

 with a publication which had learnt its true position, and had been, 

 in some departments, served for many years by the same experienced 

 hands, let us see how it has justified its boldness. Last year we 

 refrained from criticism from the revercntia qnce dehetur pueris ; but 



