2 Crust. 
CRUSTACEA. 
Hudendorff, a, Beitvag zur Kenntniss der Susswasser-Oladoceren 
Russlands. Bull. Mosc. 1. pp. 2G-G1, pi. ii. 
Miers, E. J. Descriptions of some new species of Crustacea^ chiefly 
from New Zealand. Ann. N. H. (4) xvii. pp. 218-229. 
Milne-Edwards, a. Recherches sur la faime carcinologique do la 
Nouvelle - Cal^donie. N. Arch. Mus. x. (1874) pp. 39-58, pis. 
ii. & iii. 
Rougemont, P. de. Naturgeschichte des Gammarus puteanus (Koch). 
Mimchen : 1875, 8vo (Inaugural dissertation). 
. Die Fauna der dunkeln Orte. Miinchon : 187G, 4to, 5 pis. 
Sars, G. O. Nye bidrag til kundskaben om Middelhavets Invertebrat- 
Fauna (New contribution to the knowledge of the Mediterranean 
Invertebrate Fauna) I. Middelhavets Mysider. Arch. Math, og 
Naturvidensk. i. pp. 1-111, with 3G pis. 
Stebbing, T. R. R. Description of a new species of Sessile-eyed 
Crustacea and other Notices. Ann. N. H. (4) xvii. pp. 73-80, 
pis. iv. & V. 
. Amphipodous Crustacea. Tom. cit. pp. 337-34G, pis. xviii. & 
xix. ; and xviii. pp. 443-449, pis. xix. & xx. 
Weismann, a. Ziir Naturgeschichte der Daphniden. I. Uber die 
Bildung von Wintereiern bei Leptodora hyalina. Z. wiss. Zool. 
xxvii. pp. 51-112, pis. v.-vii. 
Willemoes-Suhm, R. v. On the Development of Lepas fascicularis 
and the “ArcAisJoea” of Cirripedia. Phil. Tr. clxvi. pp. 131-154, 
pis. x.-xv. ; abstract in P. R. Soc. xxiv. pp. 129-132. 
Anatomy and Embryology. 
C. Claus has published a rather extensive work upon the em- 
bryology of the Crustacea^ and the amount of resemblance between 
their structure and that of other families and orders. He admits 
theoretically the common origin of the Crustacea from one form, but 
insists on the many difficulties which present themselves to any one who 
tries to make out the phylogenetic relations of the orders and families ; 
he expressly denies that the “ Zoea ** represents a distinct adult form of 
old times, from which various other forms would have originated, thinking 
that it has always been, as it is now, a transitory stage. He distinguishes 
two more typical stages of the metamorphosis of the Crustacea, follow- 
ing that of Nauplius and preceding that of Zoea, and distinguishes 
them by the names Metanauplius and Protozoea. It appears to be a 
general rule that the anterior segments and their appendages are first 
developed, and that by subsequent moults the posterior segments fol- 
low, one by one ; but there are many exceptions to this rule, the middle 
part of the body being of later development in the Decapoda, and this 
is to be seen in the Zhea-stage. 
The author thinks that of all now living Crustacea, the Phyllopods 
