thii't3*-eight titles, divided into four sections, 

 ■ — one for living and one for fossil Ph^ilopoda, 

 and the same for Phylloearida. The titles of 

 man}^ of the works referred to are omitted 

 in the bibliograph_y, which is evidently ver}^ 

 incomplete ; but its incompleteness is not so 

 anno3'ing as the entire want of system in its 

 arrangement, and the frequenc}' of typographi- 

 cal errors. 



Typographical errors are verj' numerous in 

 all parts of the work ; and many of them cannot 

 properly be charged to the proof-reader, who, 

 however, ought to have corrected blunders like 

 ' Yahresbericht ' (several times) and ' zoogloi- 

 cal,' and the inexplicable punctuation of most 

 of the bibliographical references in the s^'stem- 

 atic parts of the work. Errors due to careless 

 writing or careless compiling are more com- 

 mon than purel}' tyi)Ographical errors, and far 

 more confusing. On p. 313 we have the fol- 

 lowing : "It is difficult to snj whether this is 

 a Limnadia or Estheria. as the description is 

 too brief and inexact to enable us to determine 

 the genus or species. It cannot be a Limnadia, 

 and seems to approximate more closely to 

 Estheria ; though it cannot belong to that 

 genus." On p. 335 it is said that ' Schman- 

 kevitch ' found ' Branchinecta ferox (Fischer 

 sp.) ' transform b}' artificial means into Ar- 

 temia ; but in reality he found an Artemia 

 change into a Branchinecta, or into what he 

 considered a Branchipus. On p. 337, 'Lab- 

 rador examples ' are said to have been taken 

 'on the north side of Hamilton Inlet, Northern 

 Greenland.' On pp. 313 and 314 the species 



of Estheriinae not recognizable are inserted 

 between two species of Eulimnadia instead of 

 at the end of the sub-famity. Two paragraphs 

 at the bottom of p. 349, under Streptocephalus 

 Sealii, should have been placed under Chiro- 

 cephalus Holmani, on p. 352. On pp. 356 to 

 358 the genus Leaia is inserted between two 

 species of Estheria. 



The plates, perhaps the most valuable part 

 of the work, are nearly all lithographs from the 

 establishment of Thomas Sinclair & son, and 

 are apparently accurate representations of the 

 original drawings. The general figures, most- 

 ly drawn b}" Emerton and Burgess, are excel- 

 lent. The figures of details, drawn b}' the 

 author, are not always so satisfactory : the 

 figures of the appendages of Apus and Lepi- 

 durus, for example, are ver3'rudel3' drawn, and 

 badly arranged on the plates. Unfortunately, 

 the amount of enlargement of scarcely an}" of 

 the figures is given. S. I. Smith. 



