1887] Recent Literature. IIOI 
shown Dr, Packard that his definition and limitation of that 
group 1s extremely faulty. Dr. Packard’s new family, Gamp- 
_ Sonychidz, is apparently valid, and belongs, where he has placed 
t among the Schizopoda. In his paper on this group we ob- 
_ Serve that he regards his Syycarida as an ancestor of the schizo- 
pods. It is not easy to see how our knowledge of crustacean 
_ embryology supports such a view, for in development a schizo- 
_ podal condition usually precedes the single-branched appendage. 
So far as the plates show, there is nothing except the telson to 
_ Separate the family Anthracaride from the true Caridea, or to 
Indicate that it differs from any existing group. The telson, 
however, is greatly different, approaching most closely in its 
E ie to that of the existing genus Euceramus of Stimp- 
n Á 
5 
9 
z 
3 
© 
5 
m=? 
z 
= 
O 
D 
Lass | 
(aF 
co 
© 
et 
= 
a 
© 
er 
> 
D 
-t 
Ey 
"m 
3. 
a 
a. 
D 
th 
Q 
a 
a 
fi. 
° 
La 
-t 
$ 
hat Dr. Packard, in this 
ich in 
d Dohrn makes this 
da of Packard, while, 
da and Podostomata 
and his pages fairly bristle with “arthrosome,” “benopoe, 
 “urosome” u ne phalula,” and the like,—all synonymous yo 
-Previously-coined and widely-used terms. The learning of a 
; ee Nomenclature, in order to read intelligently zA of Tre 
$ rd’s later productions, is, as suggested ee alee: 
Yman in another connection, extremely like sri seagate 
_ Thomas on Mammalian Dentition.*—The reader whoeri 
ry i evuride, with an 
ies the Homologies and Succession of the Teeth in a ih estat By 
Oldi to trace the History of the Evolution of Mammalian ie 1887, p- 443- 
meld Thomas (British Museum). Philos. Transac. Royal ety, ? 
