514 History of British Entomostraca. 



II. — The Natural History of the British Entomostraca. By Wil- 

 liam Baird, Surgeon, H. C.S.PlateXVI. (Continued from p.333.) 



In my last paper (No. 4 of Magazine of Zoology and Botany) I 

 gave a monograph of all the British species of Cyclops, that I Lave 

 been able as yet to discover in the fresh water and sea shores of this 

 country, without, however, pretending to have made the list com- 

 plete.* I shall now proceed to take notice of two other genera, the 

 history of which is alsoreplete with interest, — the genera Cypris and 

 Cythere. 



In Latreille's arrangement they form the 2d group of his section 

 Lopkyropa, the Ostracoda. In M. Edwards' work they will form 

 the 1st order of his Legion Entomostraces, the Oslrapodes. M. 

 Straus, previous to M. Edwards, had removed these two genera from 

 the Branchiopodes, and formed them into a distinct order by them- 

 selves, which he has also named Oslrapodes. As we may have some 

 remarks to make upon the systematic arrangement of the insects be- 

 longing to the Entomostraca at the close of these papers, we shall 

 defer till then giving the reasons why the genera Cypris and Cythere 

 should be removed from the Branchiopodes, and in the meantime, 

 in accordance with what I have already stated upon this subject in 

 my former paper, I shall follow Latreille's arrangement with them 

 as well as with the Cyclops. 



Order, Branchiopoda, — Section, Lophyropa, 



Group, Ostracoda, — Genus, 1. Cypris, II. Cythere. 



1st Genus, Cypris. 



Bibliographical History Baker is said to be the first author 



who has taken any notice of this genus. In his work " Employ- 

 ment for the Microscope," published in 1753, an anonymous corre- 

 spondent describes at some length an insect which has a bivalve shell, 

 somewhat resembling a small fresh-water muscle, and gives a figure 

 of it lying on its back, which is barely sufficient to enable us to dis- 

 cover that it is a Cypris. Straus complains that he cannot discover 

 any mention made of the genus by Baker, either in the edition of 

 1743, or 1744, which are the only editions he has been able to see ; 

 neither is there, he says, any plate 15 in either of these editions. He 

 quotes the wrong work, however, having referred to the " Micros- 

 cope made easy," instead of Baker's second work " Employment for 

 the Microscope," in which he would have found the insect referred 



* Dr Macculloch, in his work on the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, says 

 — he has added 33 new species ! 



