ERRATA BT CORRIGENDA. 



Page 9, line 6 from bottom, /or 1855, read Proceed. Amer. Acad., ii, pp. 51 — 53, 1852. 

 ,, 11. Add to Synomjms : 



Ctpeidina (including some Gytherw, &c.), JBronn. Leth. geogn., i, p. 38, Table, 



1851. 



— (including Entomis, &c.), Bronn. Leth. geogn., 2nd edit., p. 531, 1852. 



,, 12. Add to Synonyms: Daphnia ? peim^ta, M'Coy. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 2, iv, p. 395, 1849. 



,, 20. Cypeidina oblonga, as figured at PI. V, fig. 12, is probably imperfect at the beak, as shown 

 by a better specimen with a long beak like that of G. hrevimentum. 



,, 23. Ctpeidinella Bosqueti has been found at Middleton, in the Carboniferous Limestone, near 

 Cork, by Mr. Joseph Wright, F.G.S. 



,, 38. Add to Synonyms : 



Ctpeella chetsalidea, Bronn {Homer). Lethsea geogn., vol. i, part 2, p. 533, 



t. 93, f 11, 1852. 



,, 42, line 15 from bottom, /or 53, read 54. 

 ,. 49. Add to Synonyms : 



ENTOMOcONCHrs ScoiiLEEi, BroMi {Homer). Leth. geogn., vol. i, part 2, p. 534, 



t. 93, f. 14, 1852. 



— Jones. Palseoz. Biv. Entom., Proc. Geol. Assoc., 1869, pp. 2, 5. 



„ 53, line 8 from top, /or F, fig. 2, reat/ F, f. 2. 



„ 54. POLTCOPE. 



In the palseontological portion of "The Yorkshire Lias," by E. Tate and J. F. Blake, 1876, the 

 latter has noted, at page 434, that the Carboniferous sjjecies which we have referred to folycope 

 appear to him " to belong to a different family, and only to bear an accidental resemblance to Polycope 

 in their simplicity." This resemblance being due possibly to homoplasy and not to homogeny, 

 Prof. Blake suggests (in letter) that it is not advisable to refer these Carboniferous forms to a member 

 of the Cladocopa rather than to the Ilyodocopa, of the former of which (excepting Mr. Blake's liassic 

 species) only recent and post-tertiary examples are known. Our friend's suggestion is doubtless well- 

 founded. It may be too bold to suppose that this special section of Ostracods had been already 

 separated off at that early period (Carboniferous), and that a few forms, among a number of others very 

 similar to them, alone represented this section ; and perhaps we ought to have kept them among the 

 CypridinadcE, with a distinct name. So many, however, of the fossil bivalve Eutomostraca, even of 

 Silurian age, seem to correspond with known recent genera of various alliances, that it seems scarcely 

 strange to find some palaeozoic members of even a limited and rare section. At all events, we must 

 leave the question open for the present. 



Explanation of Plate V. Fig. 6 is magnified 80 diameters. 



