202 
ZOOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 
Vanessa urticce, Bombus teirestris, Musea vomitoria, Pulex canisy 
Pentatoma baccarumy and Periplaneta orientalis. 
LeydiGj P. Der Eierstock und die Samentasclie der Insecten. 
Zugleich ein Eeitrag zur Lehre von der Befriiclitung. 
Nova Acta Acad. Nat. Cur. xxxiii. pp. 88^ pis. 5 : 1866. 
The ovary and seminal receptacle in Insects. Likewise a con- 
tribution to the theory of fecundation. 
Plateau, P. Sur la force musculaire des Insectes. See Arch. 
Cosmol. 1867, pp. 88-95. 
ScHULTZE, Max. Ueber die Endorgane des Sehnerven im Auge 
der Gliederthiere. Archiv fiir mikr. Anat. Band iii. pp. 
404-408. 
Martens (Preuss. Exp. n. Ost-Asien) indicates the general 
entomological results of the Prussian expedition. He notices 
the general character of the insects of Madeira (pp. 11, 12), 
remarks briefly upon the habits of Halobates (p. 32), indicates 
some of the more remarkable features of thejinsect-fauna of Bio 
Janeiro (p. 36), and dwells at somewhat greater length uj)on the 
entomology of Japan (pp. 128, 129). In the latter country he 
noticed the European Vanessa atalanta. The most abundant 
Butterflies were species of PieriSy Colias, and Lyccena. The 
Japanese names for Butterflies and their larvm are mentioned. 
Martens also notices the Cicadce and Orthoptera, which are 
numerous ; for the latter the J apanese have several distinctive 
names. The Coleoptera were not so noticeable; but the Ja- 
panese books contain many figures of these insects, with dis- 
tinctive names. The notices of insects of other orders are very 
brief. In a farther notice of Japanese insects (pp. 135-137) 
Martens notices some of those which are injurious or trouble- 
some to the human inhabitants, of which he gives the Japanese 
names. The useful insects of Japan are the Silkworms, of which 
the author notices the existence of 2 species, but he had no 
opportunity of observing their cultivation. 
Mobawitz (Hors 0 Soc. Ent. Eoss. iii. pp. 42-48) discusses the rules to ho 
observed in forming names from the names of persons. The question, as ho 
puts it, is as to whether the genitive termination should be in i or in eV, the 
former having been adopted by him and objected to by Schamn as contrary 
to the spirit of the Latin language. Kraatz and Kiesen wetter have also ex- 
pressed a similar opinion. Morawitz quotes from Zumpt to show that, in 
the best period of Latinity, nouns ending in ius and ium formed the genitive 
in ij at least with the poets, and that it is very probable that, even where 
Avi'itten iiy they were pronounced i. As a general rule, the question seems to 
be of little consequence, euphony being the main object to be attained in the 
ormation of the genitive, at the same time that, as Morawitz justly points 
