13 i Miscellaneous. 



C B. Wilson. NorOt- America h Farasitic Copepods helonghuj to the 

 Fauiilij Caligidue. — Parts 3 & 4. A Mevlxion of tlu' Paiidaringe and 

 Cecropinge. Proc. U.S. IS'at. Mus. vol, xxxiii. jJp- '323 Ai)^, 

 plates xvii.-xliii. December 1907. 



The parasitic Copepoda are a group of which the study is rendered 

 paiticularlj' difficult by the great changes which take place during 

 j^rowth, by the remarkable and varied sexual dimorphism, and by 

 tlie absence, in recent years, of anything like a serious revision of 

 the group or of any considerable part of it. This last difficulty 

 L)r. Wilson ha.s courageously set himself to remove in the series of 

 memoirs of which this is the latest. That his work will be of very 

 great value to iuture students cannot be doubted. The material 

 at his disposal is larger than iu the case of most earlier writers ; be 

 has been able to examine and to identify the larval stages of a 

 numl)er of species in the different subfamilies; the figures which 

 he gives are numerous, and, if somewhat inartistic and lacking 

 in detail, are clear and apparently accurate. It is much to be 

 regretted, however, that a little more trouble was not taken at the 

 outset to make quite clear the relation between the morphology of 

 tlie parasitic groups and that of the free-living forms. Dr. Wilson 

 recognizes " twelve pairs of appendages, namely, two pairs of an- 

 tennuj, one pair of mandibles, two pairs of maxillie, two pairs of 

 tuaxillipeds, and five pairs of swimming-legs." How this series of 

 appendages is to be compared with that of the typical free-swimming 

 Copepods we ai-e uofc t^old, nor is it easy to guess. W. T. C. 



MISCELLANEOUS. 



The Genotiip>e of Cidaris. 



To the Editors of the Annals and Mayuziue of Natural History. 



Gentlkjiex, — Dr. H. L, Clark's able advocacy of his views in the 

 June number of the 'Annals' helps to make clear the precise 

 difference between us, 



Exc-ept for a few advocates of pre-Linnean and non-binominal 

 names, we all agree to ascribe Cidaris to Leske. It follows by the 

 rules that the genotype must be one of the species assigned by 

 ],eske himself to Cidaris. Being unable to discover on what 

 grounds other authors had selected C. papillata, I applied the rules, 

 and found these to lead to the same result, liightly or wrongly, 

 Dr. Clark accepts no other of Leske's species as a Cidaris at all, and 

 is therefore bound either to accept C. papillata or to reject the 

 generic name. Essentially he does accept it, and it is with the 

 next step that trouble begins. 



We all agree thai Leske's sections I,, II., and III. represent three 



