CRUSTACEANS According to Dr. J. Richard 1 the Gymnomera feed on living prey, consisting generally of other entomostracans. Some of them are of much greater size than that which is normal among the Entomostraca. Their appearance is also strongly differentiated by the projecting limbs. In Polyphemus the enormous eye is naturally a conspicuous feature. In Leptodora the second antennae have a huge peduncle, with both the branches four-jointed and the plumose setae very numerous. Of the Ostracoda, which have the whole body shut up in a bivalve shell covering as if in a box, three species are recorded by Baird from Rugby, under the names of Cypris vidua, Miiller, C. monacha, Miiller, and C. compressa, Baird. 2 The first of these is now classified as Pionocypris vidua (O. F. M.), the second, from ' old canal at Rugby,' has been placed in the genus Notodromas, Lilljeborg, and the third becomes a synonym of Cypria ophthalmica (Jurine), Norman and Brady declaring it to be ' one of the commonest of British species, occurring everywhere in ditches, ponds and lakes, both freshwater and brackish.' 3 The Ostracoda are so well protected, each in its own little natural fortress, that enemies of their own size can have little chance against them. They are exceed- ingly shy of exposing needlessly any tangible part of their tender body or limbs outside the covering valves. Many can swim with great rapidity. Some prefer to pass their time clinging to weeds or crawling about the mud. Some sink and swim by turns. They are very prolific. Their species are numerous, and of these there are no doubt a goodly number in Warwickshire, so that a fuller discussion of the group may conveniently wait till more than three members of it have been recorded. Our great national library possesses a copy, though a somewhat imperfect one, of the Reports of the Warwickshire Natural History and Archaeological Society from 1837 to 1880. In the course of these con- siderable attention is paid to geology and ornithology, and a plaintive appeal is repeatedly made on behalf of entomology. But that such a subject as carcinology exists cannot be inferred from the two volumes of these collected reports, unless exception be made in favour of the report for 1845. Therein, on page 6, in a list of miscellaneous donations, mention is made of ' a Crab, by Mr. Spicer.' Naturally this crab does not claim to be indigenous to the county, any more than ' a Crustacean ' from ' the Lithographic Slate of Solenhofen,' reported on page 6 of the next report. How little then need the student be daunted by negative evidence ! How erroneous would have been any inference drawn as to a dearth of crustaceans from the dearth of information about them, which remained almost unbroken down to the year 1879 ! Since that date researches have shown that at least in one important group the county is richly provided. There are other groups in which it may be expected that a like diligence will have a like result. 1 Ann. Sfi. Nat. ser. 7, xviii. 339. British Entomostraca, pp. 152-4. 8 Trans. R. Dublin Soc. ser. 2, iv. 69 (1889). I8 3
