638 Recent Literature. [June, 
larly wish to be allowed to make some important corrections as 
to facts; and I therefore add the following remarks on the sub- 
ject from Mr. Stuart O. Ridley, zodlogical assistant in the British 
Museum, by whom the record on Spongiida was contributed: 
“ The remarks made in the review (at p. 395) upon the article 
Spongiida of the ‘ Zodlogical Record’ for 1881 (Vol. xvi) are 
almost wholly inaccurate, and it is necessary to point out one par- 
‘ticular besides in which it is, at any rate, calculated to mislead. 
“1, In the first place, the names of twelve authors are given as 
following reasons : x 
“R. O. Cunningham: the paper evidently referred to 1s 4 short 
-abstract of a paper on sponges generally, containing no NO 
facts or views. smbel): 
` “C.W. Giimpel (apparently meant for an author named Güm V aL 
the paper apparently intended had been already recorded in 
XVII, 1880, at p. 23 (ad zit.) as belonging to the year 1880. a 4 
“T. Mayer (P. Mayer is evidently intended) the paper apparently 
intended is recorded by me under Protozoa, p. 16, as referring 
-a Rhizopod and not furnishing any zoölogical information 
sponges. : 
“2. Secondly, ‘some’ writings by Sollas, Carter and WE A 
are stated not to be mentioned by me. Comparing my 4 
with the other similar record available for comparison, les) for A 
‘Zoologischer Jahresbericht’ (Zoölogical Station, gt mene i 
the year, I find that of works by Carter, I record all tho: a 
tioned by the German work and in addition one pa give | 
_fin.) and a second at p. 14 (ad jin.). Of works by Solias, which | 
reference is given but which is evidently cnn ont perhaps | 
f disadvantag™” y 
ted to give more bY 
