Saw-billed Duck (two), (Fulica americana, Gmelin), and Mud-hens (Rallus crepitans, Gmelin), Sheldrake (Mergus americanus, Cassin), Redbreasted Merganser (M. serrator, Linn.), Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus, Reichart), Common Cormorant (Graculus carbo, Gray), Ruddy Duck (Erismatura rubida, Bonaparte), Summer Duck (two), Coween Duck (three), Great Northern Diver, or Loon (Colymbus torquatus, Brunnich), Muffle-head Diver (C. arcticus). The scientific names are mainly taken from Samuels's 'Birds of New England and Neighbouring States.'"
At the meeting of the Zoological Society, on Nov. 29th, the disputed classificatory position of an interesting animal was considered, when Mr. F.G. Parsons, F.Z.S., read a paper on the anatomy of adult and fœtal specimens of the Cape Jumping Hare (Pedetes caffer). In it the different systems—osseous, muscular, nervous, circulatory, digestive, &c.—were described in some detail, and contrasted with the corresponding parts in two Jerboas (Dipus hirtipes and D. jerboa). The author regarded the muscular system as furnishing the best clue to the position of the animal, and, considering all the evidence in his possession, looked upon Pedetes as being nearly akin to the Jerboas; but thought that, if a sharp line had to be drawn anywhere between the Mouse-like and Porcupine-like rodents, Pedetes should be placed on the hystricomorphine, and the Dipodidæ on the myomorphine side of that line. The radial ossicle in the carpus, described by Bardeleben as a præpollex, was found to answer accurately to that writer's description; but Mr. Parsons failed to find any proof which satisfied him of its digital nature.
At another meeting of the above Society, held on Dec. 13th, a communication was read from Mr. H.H. Brindley, on certain characters of the reproduced appendages in the Arthropoda, particularly in the Blattidæ. It was a continuation of a paper published in the 'Proceedings' of the Society for 1897 (p. 903), and contained observations on the process of regeneration of the legs in the Blattidæ. Some review of our knowledge of the regeneration of appendages in other Arthropods was attempted, from which it appeared that while certain appendages in certain groups when regenerated were always apparently exact replicas of the normal, in other cases, besides the legs of Blattidæ, regenerated appendages invariably differed from the normal in such constant respects that they should be regarded as alternate "normals" rather than as imperfect reproductions of the congenital normal structures. In the case investigated in detail there was evidence that the process of ecdysis involved reconstruction of the soft parts as well as of the cuticle of the appendage.
