Rahn SATAN Ga Oe Mo moneyed
e *) SS ater yyy ree Foe Tee rel Peat doug hore
Oe a Ee dl SRE eee pT or Tea ed ewe
Ais y oA NBER
awk
wile Nia an DVN VANS # Legh mM ateatatl manne miata penn acer hd Wovemendya
ARM aN Da ae tape Se eh Sm oS ym home Mame
hat ttn.
= ePhesde Fate Ane wh
Satan antes eh eurnaAont ant tp Saath panten PER aneatoatant Spas tacked yada paint atm
La PES pe ae Fe a a ND ag adn!
iprty
whee towN
CENA er ihc)
oth haters Me thtm te AoW og ty 4 nai anica ay , f
BU hast thee ag Va bey 1b OQ Wagons
heen Nel re ara
NO Neto ey ae
Ms! con Mehr
ee eee thee (Ue Wt My AMAL Minh 0 Ninel hyn We,
Me = 1 te Alon Hy. eM Neat las A ee. ee Ae Nate sta Mm POH 4 Bi HN ea a Me hs rt hitter Bo "Mha Manse la Dowty op Bat MMe Net fee 0 tthe Nine Wa ts fete, ann, Ba Vin ta None Mi Boe Uo Ae tes Me MA aM tty pay bon Behn tRath eA be a tinite, ty
tote ene al Me 9m ete
Pty Mle ys tage
Wt letae
NA sa hee AMY elke oestes
ANNAN Ms Me Beat Hi Soaerci
Per ote ge 2 eto tonly pte. tae PasRiy Dowd alba thee ry ep Mh lant mtn tat
oes Uae Yh ave To ing De we
as
he
tele" Mhe ms cin atten toes
i a eA NR bey
| mri F ae bia iss
te dain
nea OSs
uf eh EVA oe Wet ee ay a a) Maes
AD SRT eR LE Heh Tigi h Na Rant i at ‘ CR PACA : i 4 y TD Sor weet ca NA MIA ae rahe i May a ‘ Ly
oh aon
Hi ey ae % 7 ¢
[FRoM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, VOL. XIX, APRIL, 1880.]
4. On a collection of Crustacea from Virginia, North Caro- lina, and Florida, with a revision of the genera of Crangonide and Paleemonide ; by J. 8. Kinestey. (From Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. for 1879, pp. 383-427, pl. 14. No date: received March, 1880).—This, the longest of Mr. Kingsley’s papers on American crustacea, notices about 100 species (9 of which are described as new), and is the most complete list yet published of the crustacea of the coast of the Southern States. It is based upon collections made by Prof. Webster of Union College. De- capoda only are included and of these the Pagurioidea are omitted. The paper covers partially the same ground as Mr Kingsley’s “List of the Decapod Crustacea of the Atlantic coast, whose range includes Fort Macon” (op. cit., 1878, pp. 316-330), and is a marked improvement upon it. Attention should be called, however, to a few of the mistakes noticed in a cursory examina- tion. In extending the range of Leptopodia sagitiaria to Chili on the authority of A. Milne Edwards’ identification of LZ. debilis
424
with that species, the author overlooks Milne Edwards’ statement in the same paragraph that L. sagittaria Kdwards and Lucas is a distinct species for which the name modesta is proposed. Acta spinifera (sp. nov.) appears to be A. acantha A. Milne Edwards, which has been well figured twice; and if not Milne Edwards? species it should have been compared with it rather than with A. hirsutissima. Hupilumnus Websteri (gen. et sp. nov.), figured and very briefly described from a single specimen wanting the chelipeds, is evidently not very closely allied to Pihumnus and is apparently based on a young specimen of Domacea hispida, which had already been reported from the Florida reefs by Stimpson. Moreover, the name Hupilumnus is preoccupied, having been used (according to the Zaological Record for 1877) by Kossmann for a division of the old genus Pilumnus. In attempting, in a foot- note on p. 405, to “straighten the synonymy of two species of Petrolisthes,” the confusion in the synonymy of one of the species isinereased. Petrolisthes Helleri is proposed for Porcellana Dane Heller (non Gibbes), regarded by Heller as the same as Porcel. armata Dana (non Gibbes). Dana, however, discovered that his name armata was preoccupied and, in the appendix to his great work, p. 1593, and in the explanation to the plates, substi- tuted spinuligera for bis species, though this has been overlooked by Stimpson and Heller as well as by Kingsley. The reason for the reference of the species to Petrolisthes is not apparent, for Stimpson retained Dana’s species in the restricted genus Porcel- lana and, at least, it has no appearance of being a /etrolisthes.
Under Caridea there is a useful revision of the genera of Cran- gonide, Atyide, and Palemonide, though one is occasionally left in doubt as to the limits of the genera adopted; as in the case of the first genus, Orangon,which is said to include Steiracrangon Kinahan, while no mention whatever is made of the same author’s Cheraphilus, which has recently been adopted by G. O. Sars and by Miers. A peculiar misuse of “ibid.”, which the proof-reader ought to have corrected, might be overlooked did it not recur so persistently in nearly all of Mr. Kingsley’s papers. ss. 1. SMITH.
5. The Crayfish: an Introduction to the Study of Zoology ; by T. H. Huxtry. 371 pp. 8vo. New York, 1880 (D. Appleton & Co.)—This last volume of the Iuternational Scientific Series is far more interesting than ordinary text-books of zoology and well- deserving of careful study. Though it treats specially of the natural history, physiology, morphology, comparative morphology, dis- tribution, and origin of crayfishes, 1t admirably fulfills the author’s desire, as "expressed in the preface, “to show how the careful study of one of the commonest and most insignificant of animals, leads us, step by step, from every-day knowledge to the widest general- izations and the most difficult problems of zoology.” <A large part of the excellent wood-cut illustrations are new, and many are unusually beautiful for a work of this class. The figures (after Bate) on page 282, are of Carcinus menas, not Cancer pagurus as labeled. S. I. SMITH.
|
| |
|
|
88 00048 5425
0
n uw 3 a an z ° = pe] = = 2) z z < z oO 2) xr = = on
pte PO vanget atic wpsies pate
Eee Te Se
ee ee
OR FO da Ohi GRIE. Cr wae
Ae Rw ae
eoge wep Fone pe trie
v a ey lene cas ko ee
Pty her ee 2 E ss i Laat gages ‘ x : ’ F888 Oe SNe WA eee RAGS s - : te fk < 4 eee i eS ST SP beg ieem a ‘ “
ee agent a Wey
Sk a ae ce | : oe - oe — “Sle ene aie - + ‘ s = £ s a > i eae diA i “ae ah oe he a. Ste : . ; : Parwuantwne inne Se ah oa" . i eats hike
Reh deity HAL Dy