126 TWELFTH ANNUAL REPORT. 



this proceeding seems quite unjust to the careful authors whose 

 descriptions are recognizable in themselves, the law of priority must 

 probably prevail. Koch's Deutschlands Krustaceen appeared in 1838. 



BaircVs British Entomostraca^ without greatly extending our 

 knowledge of this order, put in readable form and made available to 

 English readers what was known, and added interesting facts. He 

 distinguished two families of Copepoda, (1.) Cyclopidse, (2.) Diap- 

 tomidse. The first included the genera (1.) Cyclops, (2.) Canthocamp- 

 tus, (3.) Arpacticus, (4.) Alteutha; and the second the general (i.) 

 Diaptomus, (2.) Temora, (3.) Anomlocera. 



Fischer^ who contributed not a little to our knowledge of the 

 distribution of fresh-water Cladocera, was the next to describe valid 

 species. He described the species found near Moscow and St. Peters- 

 burg, Russia. 



Ouchahoff is likewise a Russian author, but his writings are quite 

 unknown to me. 



The justly famous Swedish naturalist, W. Lilljeborg^ who has 

 left his mark on so many branches of natural science, has not 

 neglected the microscopic Crustacea of his fatherland. Om de inom 

 Shaane foerekommande Crustaceer af ordningarne Cladocera^ Ostra- 

 coda och Copeiooda is the somewhat formidable title of his work, 

 published in 1855. He recognized the following genera of Cope- 

 poda: Diaptomus, Temora, Dias, Ichtyophorba, Tisbe, Tachidius, 

 Harpacticus, Canthocamptus, and Cyclops. A species each of Diap- 

 tomus and Canthocamptus is described, and two species of Cyclops. 

 (It would seem from authors' quotations that other species are de- 

 scribed in an appendix, but the copy I have seen lacks this.) The 

 author who has done most for micro-carcinology in general is Carl 

 Claiis^ of Vienna. His principal works are: 



1. "Das Genus Cyclops," etc. In Wiegmann's Archivfuer Natur- 

 geschichte. 3 857. 



2. " Weitere Mittheilungen ueber die einheimischen Cyclopiden." 

 The same, 1857. 



3. Die Freilebenden Copepode^i, 1863. 



The later work especially is indispensable to the student of Co- 

 pepoda, though in reality it is more important in respect to marine 

 Copepoda. 



In the meantime a work appeared in Norwegian, with Latin de- 

 scriptions, from the pen of G. 0, Sars. This has been largely over- 

 looked. It is, unfortunately, unaccompanied by plates, but the de- 

 scriptions bear the stamp of the naturalist. 



