34 Moll 
MOLLUSCA. 
heaps, not before known there, though not uncommon in the heaps of 
Florida and the Gulf States; E. S. Morse, P. Am. Ass. xxx. (Cincin- 
nati : 1881) p. 343. Changes in My a and Lunatia since the deposition of 
the New England shell-heaps ; id. 1. c. p. 345. 
J. R. Bourguignat states that the principle of the “new school ” of 
malacologists is to give a distinct specific name to each form which can be 
characterized by at least three constant characters from any other ; 
“ Lettres malacologiques,” pp. 36-38. 
CEPHALOPODA. 
J. Brock expatiates on the mutual affinities and probable pedigree of 
the ten-armed Cephalopoda ; Z. wiss. Zool, xxxvi. pp. 549-557 & GOO. 
Speculations on the natural selection and the ink-bag of dibranchiate 
Cephalopods, by S. P. Robins, Canad. Nat. ix. [1880] pp. 414-420. Girod’s 
paper on the ink-bag ; see in the General Subject, Excretion. 
Researches on the structure of the liver and the intestine of Octopus 
vulgaris , by C. Livon, CR. Assoc. Fr. 9 sess. Reims, 1880, pp. 732-738, 
with several woodcuts. 
The milt is probably present in all Cephalopods, but in Ommastrephes 
and the Myopsidce less developed and concealed by the gill ; Brock, 
Z. wiss. Zool. xxxvi. p. 547, foot-note. 
The genital organs, male and female, of several Cephalopoda , chiefly 
Enoploteuthis , Onychoteuthis, Thysanoteuthis , Argonauta , Philonexis , and 
Tremoctopus , are described and compared by J. Brock. He states that the 
gland of the oviduct exhibits very remarkable gradual differences from 
the rather simple structure in Argonauta , to the presence of receptacula 
seminis in Tremoctcpus and Parasira , and the internal duplicity of the 
gland in Parasira and Octopus ; and he thinks that the viscero-'pericardial 
cavity of the ten-armed Cephalopods is reduced in the Octopoda to the 
water-channels described in 1839 by Krohn, and the so-called genital- 
capsule. Z. wiss. Zool. xxxvi. pp. 558-601, pis. xxxiv. & xxxv., and 
schematical figures in pi. xxxvi. 
J. Steenstrup refers to a number of mistakes made by various authors 
on the determination of the Cephalopoda , the development of which they 
have studied. The subject of Van Beneden’s observations in 1841, of 
Mecznikow’s in 1867, and Ussow’s in 1874, probably also of Fol in 1874, 
all supposed to be made on Sepiola, was a species of Loligo ) probably 
L. marmorce (Verany), as can be proved by their descriptions of the eggs. 
The subject of Kolliker’s (1844) and Ussow’s observations, ascribed by 
them to Loligo ( Ommastrephes ) sagittata (Lam.), was Loligo vulgaris 
(Lam.) ; Delle Chiaje alone has given a few notes on the development of 
Ommastrephes , viz., 0. coincleti (Yerany), miscalled by him Loligo sagit- 
tata. The pelagic Cephalopod, the development of which was described by 
Grenacher in 1874, is probably an Ommastrephes , or a nearly allied genus, 
not a Loligopsis. The development of Cranchia , Loligopsis , and Sepiola , 
and uearly allied genera, is as yet unknown. Biol. Centralbl. 1882, 
pp. 354-365. 
