2 Crust 
X. CRUSTACEA. 
[ 1905 ] 
2. 
Schizopoda . . 
Page 
. 46 
3. 
Stomatopoda . . 
. 48 
4. 
Cumacea . . . 
. 49 
5. 
Tanaidacea . . 
. 50 
6. 
Isopoda .... 
. 50 
Asellota . . 
. 50 
Phreatoicoidea 
. 51 
Flabellifera 
. 51 
Valvifera . . 
. 54 
Epicaridea . . 
. 54 
Oniscoidea . . 
. 55 
7. 
Amphipoda . . 
. 56 
Gammarina . 
, 56 
Hyperina . . 
. 59 
Caprellina . . 
. 59 
8. 
Pliyllocarida . . 
. 59 
Entomostraca 
1. 
Branchiopoda . . 
. 60 
a. Phyllopoda . 
Page 
. 60 
b. Cladocera . 
. 60 
2. Copepoda . . . 
. 62 
3. Jlranchiura . . 
. 70 
4. Ostracoda . . . 
. 70 
5. Cirripedia . . . 
. 73 
Gigantostraca 
I. Titles 
. 73 
II. Subject-Index . . 
. 75 
III. Distribution. . . 
. 75 
IV. Systematic 
Xiphosura. . . 
. 76 
Trilobita . . . 
. 76 
Eurypterida . . 
. 79 
Pycnogonida 
. 79 
INTRODUCTION. 
The great increase in the number of titles recorded under Crustacea as 
compared with last year (355 against 258) is partly due to the later date 
of closing the list, but chiefly to the rigorous preliminary searching of the 
periodicals by Mr C. Hadrill. 
No very outstanding contributions to the general morphology of the 
Crustacea seem to be among the works recorded, though several authors 
such as Carpenter (56) and Thiele (301) deal with questions affecting 
the class as a whole. In two papers on Isopodci (129 & 130), Hansen has 
elucidated many points of morphology with his accustomed thoroughness. 
Especially in that dealing with the Sphceromidce (130) he has provided a 
staole basis for the classification of a large and hitherto chaotic group. 
G. Smith (285) has vindicated the general accuracy, on which doubt had 
been cast, of Fritz Muller’s account of dimorphism in male Tanaidce. In 
the same paper he also describes, in the males of certain crabs, an 
alternation of breeding and non-breeding phases, parallel to that long 
known in the genus Cambarus. Bouvier’s (25) memoir on the Atyidce 
not only provides a valuable revision of the family but gives a most 
interesting account of the “ mutations ” which he has discovered in these 
freshwater prawns. Attention should also be called to Przibram’s (231) 
study of 44 Heterochelie ” in Decapods. 
Blanc’s (19) announcement of the discovery of a Caprellid in the Lake 
of Geneva is somewhat startling, but it is inevitable that it should be 
received with scepticism while it rests on the evidence of a solitary 
specimen. 
Among the more purely systematic works an important place must be 
given to Alcock’s fine monograph of the Indian Paguridea (1). Mention 
may also be made of the long series of papers on the collections of the 
Prince of Monaco (26-28, 31-34, 61-66, 81-85, 87, 126, 127, 258, 259) and 
on those from the West of Ireland (51, 52, 104, 105, 137, 138, 224, 297-300), 
from the Maidive Islands (88, 317, 337), Ceylon (223, 265, 290), and the 
Cape (293), and of Dad ay’s large work on the freshwater fauna of 
Paraguay (92). 
