Wi Oe ae ee Fe 
EDITORIAL NOTE. 
Early in the spring of 1894 the state geologist, N. H. Winchell, 
referred to me a letter from Professor C. L. Herrick containing two 
propositions, viz.: (1) That the Survey accept and publish the present 
revision of the report of 1884; (2) that the author be permitted to 
make such use of the old report as he saw fit and publish the revision 
independently of the Survey. After having been assured that the 
errors of the 1884 report had been corrected and the report had been 
bettered in other respects, it was decided, for reasons that seemed 
sufficient, to accept the first offer, though the revision had been begun 
and practically finished without the knowledge of any one connected 
with the Survey. The manuscript was received during the last week 
of October, 1894. 
The editorial work as well as the proofreading all fell to the zoolo- 
gist of the Survey. The author’s serious illnessand his great distance 
_ from the University made it impracticable to put any of this work 
upon him, The work was at times very disheartening, but I did my 
best, and trust that at least most of the errors and shortcomings of the 
manuscript have been eliminated. 
In justice to the author the following matters deserve special men- 
tion: 
The author’s title, ‘‘Synopsis of the Microcrustacea,”’ etc., was 
changed for reasons found principally in the primary destination of | 
the repart and in the usage of some of our best and most generally 
used text-books of zoology. 
For making reference only by author and date the editor is wholly 
responsible. The date is always an important and often a very essen- 
tial part of a publication, and for that reason alone is far superior to 
a reference by a purely artificial number. The superiority of an 
abbreviated reference to a full or more or less mutilated citation is so 
obvious that it needs no vindication. 
In the bibliography the editor has supplied the number of pages, 
number of plates and similar data of detail from Taschenberg’s 
Bibliotheca Zoologica, Zoologischer Anzeiger, Zoologischer Jahresbericht, 
and the Catalogue of Scientific Papers compiled by the Royal Society of 
‘London. Where these data are wanting the citation could not be 
found in these publications or could not be identified beyond a doubt. 
In comparatively few cases could these data be obtained from original 
sources. More or less gross discrepancies between the manuscript 
and the publications noted above were very numerous as to date, title 
“ag 
