250 A. E. Verrill on new American Phyllopod Crustacea, 
larger than in either of our species, while Baird’s figure repre- 
sents them as very small; but his specimens appear to have 
been smaller, and may have been immature, for these species 
begin to breed before they are half grown. Whether the French 
species be distinct from the English can only be determined by 
additional examinations, especially of the male, for the male of 
the former appears not to have been figured hitherto. 
Brancuirvs Sheeffer. 
Branchipus Sheeffer, Elementa entomologica, 1766, (type, 
B. pisciformis=(?) B. stagnalis Linn. sp.). 
Branchipus (pars) Lamarck ; Latreille ; Leach ; Edwards. 
Chirocephalus (pars) Dana, (non Bénédict-Prévost, 1803 ; 
urine; Thompson; Baird), 
Under the name of Branchipus at least four generic groups 
have been confounded by various authors: 
Branchipus should be restricted to the original species des- 
cribed by Sheeffer and the allied species, of which B. stagnalis 
(Linn. sp.) is one, and if not identical with B. pisciformis, 
as is generally supposed, must be closely allied. 
As thus restricted the genus is characterized by the stout, 
two-jointed claspers of the male, with or without a tooth near 
the base of the hook, the basal joint being swollen ; by having 
a pair of simple appendages resembling antenne between the 
bases of the claspers in front ; by the large, thick, oval egg- 
pouches of the female, and, apparently, by the structure of the 
branchial organs. It includes B. stagnalis, B. spinosus Edw., 
B. vernalis Verrill, sp. nov., etc. Perhaps B. paludosus Miil- 
ler also belongs here. 
Branchinecta—A group of species allied to these,—but des- 
titute of all appendages between the bases of the claspers of 
the male, which are more slender and simple; with a mu h 
elongated ege-pouch, having lateral lobes at the base ; a more 
slender body, with more elongated branchial organs, the middle 
ones longest; and having, in general appearance, a much strong- 
er resemblance to Artemia,—probably constitutes another ge 
nus, but for the present we prefer to regard it as a subgenus of 
Branchi 
‘ W. r Odessa, ‘ 
_ Heterobranchipus.—Dr. Loven* has described a singular spe- 
cies, B. Cafer, which appears worthy to constitute a distinct 
It is remarkab i 
