544 REVIEWS. 
over classifications usually accepted, and groups of facts broken up and 
scattered, believing that another master mind like Humboldt’s, or Cuvier's, 
will arise in the years coming to recrystallize them and demonstrate anew 
Not agreeing with the view of Huxley, who would split up the "Mollüsca 
into two Sie time (believing that though degraded, the Ascidians, Brachi- 
opods and Polyzoa are true mollusks) nor in the ** subregnal —— of 
the itoat say Frey and Leuckart have attempted t 
let us examine the author’s views regardin ng the classification of the 
Cuvierian Articulata, d seek the reasons of his adopting Siebold's view 

subkingdom, equivalent to t ertebrates for instance, àn t 
Cuvierian b f Articulata be dem In the arrangement of 
the classes of the Articulates, the author retrogrades nearly a quarter of 
a century, and in th sects, more than that time. This is due 
The views of Leuckart, which have been ably secon nded by P A 
allied to the segmented Leeches (Discophora) to be placed in a separate 
sustiapdom by a robe of negative c— sem oe the author pro- 
po Myriapod nd Arachnida sses, gava 

to the Insecta and Crustacea. The direct homology of the adult forms 
f Myriapods and Arachnids with the insects, and more especially the sig- 
niflcant facts that the young of these two groups are, when first hatched, 
"m 
iebold in 1848) and Premi for which we could never see any 
good reason; both Insects and Cru a in their retrograde genera some- 
times assuming worm-like forms, a dimer of the unity of type in the three 
classes. The worms seem to us to stand in the same relation to the 
2, as the fishes do to the Mammalia. 
às well as in classes and orders, or families and 


