CRUSTACEA. 297 
Spence Bate, but that he had been informed that he had since 
recognized his error. 
In the journal alluded to by M. Hesse, Mr. Spence Bate 
stated that he had taken Ti'aniza gravid with young, which 
young bore a similitude to the adult AnccuSy and therefore 
that if M. Hesse had obtained larvse from Anceus, then these 
two animals must necessarily be both adult females. When he 
communicated the paper to the ‘ Annals and Magazine of Natural 
History,^ Mr. Spence Bate little thought that M. Hesse and 
himself had seen one and the same thing — that Anceus (female) 
of M. Hesse was a Praniza ; for certain it is that Prmiiza of 
Montagu is entirely ignored throughout M. Hesse^s memoir, and 
spoken of only as Anceus female. The term Praniza is used by 
M. Hesse to designate a larval stage only, which in its earliest 
form bears no resemblance to Montagues creature. 
M. Hesse was misunderstood in consequence of using a term 
accepted by carcinologists as belonging to an adult animal * 
to mean the larva only. All M. Hesse^s figures of female 
Ancei will be recognized by every student in this branch of 
carcinology as representing animals to which Montagu gave the 
generic name of Praniza. The great fact which M. Hesse has dis- 
covered and established is that the two animals which most 
carcinologists placed in distinct families, are but sexual varia- 
tions of one ; but that Praniza is the larval form of Anceus 
he has not established, and, moreover, from observation, we 
most emphatically deny, since side by side we have been en- 
abled to trace from the larva taken from the pouch of Praniza 
a scarcely unbroken series to the forms of the adult Anceus and 
the adult Praniza. This we believe M. Hesse has also donef, 
only erring in assigning the name Praniza to the larval 
condition instead of to the adult female. The error is small, 
the labour of M. Hesse is great, and his observations original; 
greater is his labour than appears in this memoir, for of the 
fifteen plates which accompany his paper only four are pub- 
lished. 
The first section of his memoir consists of some preliminary 
observations relative to his ascertaining the identity of Praniza 
and Anceus, in which M. Hesse details a series of experiments 
that induced him to arrive at the conclusions that he has 
expressed. 
* M. Lucas (Annales de la Society Entomologique de France, 2 ser. tom. vii. 
f ). 466, pi. 15) describes and figures Prmiiza ohesa with ova, On aper^oit 
es oeufs agglomeres entre eux, d’un jaune roussatre et de forme arrondie.” 
t Fig. It), pi. i. of M. Hesse, which is figured as Praniza, Larve du meme 
Ancde ” {Praniza), is undoubtedly a young male ; while fig. 11 in the 
same plate, which is described by the author as Larve du mcme, is as un- 
doubtedly a female. The reader can refer to the respective sizes of the 
animals as given by the author. We have taken both these forms from the 
pouch of an adult female. 
