532 Record of American Carcinology for 1880. [July, 
RECORD OF AMERICAN CARCINOLOGY FOR 1880. 
BY J. S. KINGSLEY. 
re continuing the record of American crustacean literature, be- 
gun by the writer last year (NATURALIST, XIV, pp. 498-503), the 
principal papers will be considered under the heads, systematic, 
anatomical and embryological, and in these by authors in alphabet- 
ical order. A complete list of papers, so far as known to the re- 
corder, completes the record. 
Descriptive papers have this year been few and are of appar- 
ently a better character than is frequently the case, a goodly pro- 
portion being monographic in character. Messrs. Harger, Kings- 
ley, Packard and Smith are the only writers who have described 
new species during the year. Mr. Harger (4) presents a valuable 
synopsis of all the marine Isopoda of the New England coast, 
with full synonyma and good illustrative figures. He begins with 
a general account of the external anatomy of the Isopoda; next 
comes the systematic portion, by which we find that New Eng- 
land possesses 46 species arranged under 34 genera and 14 fami- 
lies. One new genus and species is described, Syscenus infelrx, and 
of this but a single specimen is known. Possibly its solitary 
condition and consequent lonesomeness prompted the specific 
name. Following the systematic portion we find a résumé of the 
geographical and bathymetrical distribution, from which we learn 
that If species are found only south of Cape. Cod, 19 exist only 
north of that barrier, while 16 are common to both sides of the 
cape, and 11 species are common to both Europe and America. 
A very complete bibliography concludes the article, enumerating 
over two hundred titles. We notice, however, that the excellent 
articles of Schiodte and Meinert! are nowhere mentioned. With 
our marine Isopods in this excellent condition, we wish that Mr. 
Harger or some other equally competent naturalist would under- 
take to straighten out the terrestrial forms, on which, with the 
exception of work by Say, Fitch, Dana and Stuxberg, but little 
has been done. 3 
Mr. Kingsley has been the largest contributor to systematic 
carcinology, but this is hardly the place for a critical review of 
his work. His first paper (7), though issued in the Proceedings 
of the Philadelphia Academy for 1879, was not printed until the 
1 See NATURALIST, XIV, p. 519, 1880. _ 
