MORPHOLOGY OF BATHYNELLA AND ALLIED CRUSTACEA. 513 
between Thoracostraca and Arthrostraca, 1 while Giesbrecht 
(1913) even goes so far as to include it as one of the 
divisions of the Arthrostraca. It may be worth while, there- 
fore, to point out once again that the edriophthalmate orders 
are unmistakably linked, through the Apseudidse and Cuma- 
cea, with the lower Mysidacea (Lophogastridae), and that 
in this series there is nowhere a place for the Syncarida. 
This affiliation rests on the evidence, not of one, but of a 
number of independent characters, which need not be re- 
capitulated here, but which are in no way disposed of by 
Giesbrecht’s bold assumption that the brood-pouch has been 
independently developed in Mysidacea, Cumacea, and Arthro- 
straca. As a matter of fact, although the Syncarida evidently 
form by themselves a division of equal rank with the Eucarida 
and Peracarida, the balance of characters inclines to ally 
them rather more closely with the former than with the 
latter. 
X. List of Papers referred to. 
Caiman, W. T. (1896). — “ On the Genus Anaspides and its Affinities 
with certain Fossil Crustacea,” ‘ Trans. Roy. Soc., Edinburgh.' 
xxxviii, pp. 787-802, 2 pis. 
(1899). — “ On the Characters of the Crustacean Genus Bathy- 
nella, Vejdovsky,” ‘Journ. Linn. Soc. Zool., xxvii, pp. 338-344, 
pi. xx. 
(1909). ‘ Crustacea.” In: ‘A Treatise on Zoology,’ edited by 
Sir Ray Lankester, pt. vii, fasc. 3. 
■ (1911). — “ On some Crustacea of the Division Syncarida from 
the English Coal-measures,” ‘ Geol. Mag.’ (dec. v), viii, pp. 488- 
495, 5 text-figs. 
Chappuis, P. A. (1914 a). — “ Ueber die systematisclie Stellung von 
Batliynella natans Vejd.,” ‘Zool. Anz., xliv, pp. 45-47, 1 
text-fig. 
1 Vanhoffen (1916) adopts Grobben's classification, but adds the 
remarkable opinion “ dass die Ordnung [Anomostraca] keine natiir- 
liche ist, dass wohl ahnliclie, aber nicht wirkliche nahe verwandte 
Formen in ihr vereinigt wurden.” 
