514 History of British Entomoslraca. 
II. The Natural History of the British Entomostraca. By WIL- 
LIAM BAIRD, Surgeon, H. C.S.PlateXVI.fContinuedfromp.333.) 
IN my last paper (No. 4 of Magazine of Zoology and Botany) I 
gave a monograph of all the British species of Cyclops, that I have 
been able as yet to discover in the fresh water and sea shores of this 
country, without, however, pretending to have made the list com- 
plete.* I shall now proceed to take notice of two other genera, the 
history of which is also replete with interest, the genera Cyprisand 
Cythere. 
In Latreille's arrangement they form the 2d group of his section 
Lophyropa, the Ostracoda. In M. Edwards' work they will form 
the 1st order of his Legion Entomostraces, the Oslrapodes. M. 
Straus, previous to M. Edwards, had removed these two genera from 
the Branchiopodes , and formed them into a distinct order by them- 
selves, which he has also named Ostrapodes. As we may have some 
remarks to make upon the systematic arrangement of the insects be- 
longing to the Entomostraca at the close of these papers, we shall 
defer till then giving the reasons why the genera Cypris and Cythere 
should be removed from the Branchiopodes, and in the meantime, 
in accordance with what I have already stated upon this subject in 
my former paper, I shall follow Latreille's, arrangement with them 
as well as with the Cyclops. 
Order, BRANCHIOPODA, Section, LOPHYROPA, 
Group, OSTRACODA, Genus, 1. CYPRIS, II. CYTHERE. 
1st Genus, CYPRIS. 
Bibliographical History Baker is said to be the first author 
who has taken any notice of this genus. In his work " Employ- 
ment for the Microscope," published in 1753, an anonymous corre- 
spondent describes at some length an insect which has a bivalve shell, 
somewhat resembling a small fresh-water muscle, and gives a figure 
of it lying on its back, which is barely sufficient to enable us to dis- 
cover that it is a Cypris. Straus complains that he cannot discover 
any mention made of the genus by Baker, either in the edition of 
1743, or 1744, which are the only editions he has been able to see ; 
neither is there, he says, any plate 15 in either of these editions. He 
quotes the wrong work, however, having referred to the " Micros- 
cope made easy," instead of Baker's second work " Employment for 
the Microscope," in which he would have found the insect referred 
* Dr Macculloch, in his work on the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, says 
he has added 33 new speciesj 
