INTRODUCTION. 
Moll. 3 
paper by Pelseneer (419) on ‘Archaic Molluscs’ should be studied, and 
a food summary of our knowledge of the Opisthobranchs will be found in 
Guiart (226), whilst Biedermann (43) has dealt with the formation of 
the shell. Of papers dealing with the Cephalopoda we may note those 
of Rabl (464) on the chromatophores, Rottmann (485) on the radula, 
and Hescheler (245) on Sepia. Pleurotomaria has been the subject of 
a careful study by Woodward, M. F. (667), it being, unfortunately, the 
last time his name will appear as an author in our record ; while notes 
have been written on the same genus by Bouvier & Fischer (69 & 70) and 
Hescheler (246). We have already referred to the paper by VayssiAre 
on Nudibranchs, and have also to chronicle one by Krembzow (309) on the 
JEolididce. Conklin (119 & 120) has continued his studies on the embry¬ 
ology of Crepidida. To Bergh (40) we owe a most valuable comparative 
study of several species of Harpa. The nervous system of Capidus has 
attracted Lacaze-Duthiers (311), while Jordan (277) has dealt with the 
locomotion of Aplysia. Much work has been done on the gastric gland, 
and we may mention the paper by MacMunn (330). Wiegmann (653) has 
written a most useful account of the Buliminidce of Central Asia. 
Collinge (108, etc.) has issued several papers on slugs, and other papers 
on Gastropoda by Beutler (42), Godwin-Austen (200-2), and Tobler 
(598) may be named. 
Turning to the Pelecypods, we may note the paper by Ahting (2), also 
a study of Solen by Bloomer (54), a paper on the life-history of Nucula 
by Drew (165), a study of the egg in Unio by Lillie (319), and Meisen- 
heimer’s (354, 356) work on the development of Dreissensia. The most 
important work on the Polyplacophora is that of Plate (453). 
As an example of the careless way in which authors propose new 
names for forms which ‘are still undetermined,’ we may cite the following 
from the report of a meeting of the Geological Society of Glasgow : 
“Mr. John Smith exhibited specimens of a curious set of small bodies 
found. These bodies are still undetermined, but belonged, he 
believed, to one of the Carboniferous Nudibranchs, and for which he 
therefore proposed the provisional name of Archceodoris carbonarius .” 
Later on, perhaps, we may be favoured with a diagnosis, and a list of 
these ‘Carboniferous Nudibranchs.’ 
Turning now to the ‘Record’ itself, we have first to chronicle the fact 
that, owing to ill-health, Mr. G. C. Crick has been unable to assist this 
year, and Mr. S. Pace has taken over a share of the work. One or two 
alterations made in the present year may be briefly referred to. A 
paragraph has been inserted, at the close of the ‘ Titles,’ giving details 
with regard to Biographies, Obituary Notices, etc. Further, a fresh 
classification of the Anatomical and Biological portion of the work has 
been made which, it is hoped, will facilitate reference by students. Con¬ 
tinuing the practice, instituted last year, of breaking up the lengthy 
paragraphs included under the heading ‘ Geological,’ a slight step further 
has been made. Also, as it was found that formations called by one 
author ‘ Miocene,’ were called ‘ Eocene ’ by another, it has been felt that 
the most convenient course would be to arrange all the Tertiary entries 
geographically, so as to avoid the risk of fossils from one locality and the 
same horizon being entered in different places. 
Students are warned that, owing to difficulty of access, a few publica¬ 
tions containing papers on Mollusca, e.g. Anz. Ak. Wiss. for 1900 and 1901 
and Ann. Hofmus. Wien xvi, are not full} 7 included in the present volume. 
In conclusion, we would protest against the eccentricities of pagination 
which are indulged in by certain serial publications and which render 
accurate reference very troublesome. Thus, the ‘ Zeitschr. Deutsch. geol. 
Ges.’ now consists of ‘ Aufsatze,’ ‘ Briefliche Mittheilungen,’ and ‘ Proto- 
kolle,’ all separately paged in arabic notation. Again, the ‘ Jahrb. Preuss. 
