66 
BRITISH ENTOMOSTRACA. 
Goeze, in the ‘ Naturforscher,’ 1775, describes the 
same species, under the name which Swammerdam had 
given to it, the Pulex arborescens ; and Sulzer, in his 
‘ Abjekiirzte Geschichte der Insecten/ 1776, gives a very 
indifferent figure of what he calls Monoculus pulex , but 
which is evidently the Daphnia vetula. 
Muller, in his paper on the Cypris, in the f Philoso- 
phical Transactions" for 1771, has enumerated several 
species of Daphnia as occurring in Norway and Denmark, 
but under the general name of Monoculus. In 1776, 
however, he established the genus Daphne, in his ‘Zoologiae 
Danicse prodromus/ and enumerated eight species, only 
three of which had ever been noticed before his time. 
In his ‘ Entomostraca/ 1785, he adds one other species, 
gives figures of all the nine, and a lengthened description 
of each. He changes the generic name from Daphne to 
Daphnia, which latter name has been adopted by suc- 
ceeding authors, and alters the specific names of two 
species, though without good reasons for doing so. 
De Geer, in vol. vii of his ‘ Memoires pour servir a 
THistoire des Insectes/ 1778, gives a good many details 
concerning this family, pointing out two or three errors 
into which Swammerdam had fallen, and giving very 
accurate descriptions of some portions of their anatomy. 
He describes at length, and figures very nicely and with 
considerable faithfulness, four different species, two of 
which, previous to this, had only been noticed by Muller, 
in his * Zoolog. Dan. prodrom/ 
Blumenbach, in his ‘ Handbuch der Naturgeschichte,’ 
1779, mentions one species, the pulex ; and Eiehhorn, 
in his ‘ Beytrage zur Naturgeschichte der kleinsten 
Wasserthiere,’ 1781, gives a tolerable figure of the same 
species. 
Gmelin, in his edition of the c Sy sterna Naturae/ 1788, 
gives all the nine species of Muller, and adds to them the 
Monoculus pediculus, which Muller had already formed 
into a genus by itself, the Polyphemus . 
Manuel, in the ‘Encyclopedic methodique/ 1792, 
