ALBERT

Description: Opinions are divided in relation to what generical name has priority, Heliacus or Torinia. In proof of this I will quote, leaving aside those of many others, the opinions of two authorities.\nThiele [1918, p. 80 (114)] writes: "Bez\xc3\xbcglich des Namens Torinia bemerkt Iredale, dass ihm Heliacus Orbigny, weil \xc3\xa4lter, vorzuziehen sei; es mag sein, dass dieser Name ein wenig \xc3\xa4lter ist \xe2\x80\x94 nach Hermannsen von 1841, nach Iredale 1842, es scheint also die Zeit des Erscheinens nicht ganz festzustehen \xe2\x80\x94, w\xc3\xa4hrend Torinia von Gray 1842 auf die Beschaffenheit des Deckels hin begr\xc3\xbcndet worden ist".\nThe opinion of Tomlin (1928, p. 333), however, is quite different: "Gray in Proc. Zool. Soc., 1847, \xce\xa1\xc2\xb7 151, gives his own genus Torinia precedence, quoting it as of 1840 and 1842. These two references are to different editions of the \'Synopsis of the Contents of the British Museum\', and are fully explained by Iredale in Proc. Malac. Soc. (London), X, pp. 294-309.\nThe 1840 usage of Torinia is a nomen nudum; the 1842 edition gives a short comparative account of operculum only, quoted on p. 308. It hardly seems a sufficient diagnosis on which to found a genus, and the reasons for rejection given by Iredale on p. 301 may well be applied to this case at any rate".\nAs I mentioned already in a previous paper (1940, p. 223), I follow in this catalogue Thiele\'s "Handbuch der systematischen Weichtierkunde", in relation to the generic names and also as far as concerns the classification, but it is not my intention to state thereby hat I always completely agree with the opinions of his author.\nI wish to express here my heartiest thanks to the gentlemen who helped

Description: Au cours de l\'ann\xc3\xa9e 1935, le Directeur du Mus\xc3\xa9e de Prague a eu l\'amabilit\xc3\xa9 de m\'envoyer en communication les 3 syntypes de Synaptura lipophthalma Janos ; de son c\xc3\xb4t\xc3\xa9, M. Hardenberg, Directeur du Laboratoire oc\xc3\xa9anographique de Batavia (Laboratorium voor het Onderzoek der Zee), m\'a fait le don g\xc3\xa9n\xc3\xa9reux de 3 paratypes de son Typhlachirus caecus. C\'est avec joie que je saisis l\'occasion qui m\'est offerte ici de remercier ces deux savants de leur extr\xc3\xa8me courtoisie, gr\xc3\xa2ce \xc3\xa0 laquelle j\'ai pu examiner \xc3\xa0 loisir et comparer directement entre eux tous ces sp\xc3\xa9cimens.\nSommaire.\nI. \xe2\x80\x94 Revision du genre Typhla- Les \xc3\xa9piotiques......34\nchirus.........3 Le parasph\xc3\xa9no\xc3\xafde.....35\nRemarques .......21 Les prootiques......36\nII. \xe2\x80\x94 Esp\xc3\xa8ce dont il reste \xc3\xa0 pr\xc3\xa9ciser Les opisthotiques.....36\nla position syst\xc3\xa9matique . .22 Les pt\xc3\xa9rotiques......36\nIII. \xe2\x80\x94 Contribution \xc3\xa0 la morphologie Les sph\xc3\xa9notiques.....37\nanatomique de Typhlachirus L\'acrinioste.......37\nlipophthalmus......23 Les pari\xc3\xa9taux......38\nRemarques critiques relatives Les frontaux ......38\n\xc3\xa0 la nomenclature ost\xc3\xa9ologique Le parethmo\xc3\xafde nadiral . . 40 des T\xc3\xa9l\xc3\xa9ost\xc3\xa9ens .....23 Le parethmo\xc3\xafde z\xc3\xa9nithal . . 42 A. \xe2\x80\x94 L\'organe nasal z\xc3\xa9nithal ... 23 Le dermethmo\xc3\xafde.....42\nB. \xe2\x80\x94 Le clidoste.......24 Le vomer........43\nC. \xe2\x80\x94 Le neurocr\xc3\xa2ne......27 D. \xe2\x80\x94 Le rhachis abdominal .... 43\nCaract\xc3\xa8res g\xc3\xa9n\xc3\xa9raux .... 27 E. \xe2\x80\x94 L\'appareil digestif.....48\nLe basinioste ......32 F. \xe2\x80\x94 L\'appareil excr\xc3\xa9teur et l\'organe

Description: Floating aquatic herbs with dimorphic leaves, submerged ones opposite pinnatifid rootlike, apical ones in a rosette, rhomboid, dentate, with spongy often inflated petiole, arranged in leaf-mosaic; stipules 4-8, minute. Flowers bisexual, small, solitary, axillary, short-pedicelled, 4-merous, white or lilac. Petals imbricate. Disk present. Ovary half-inferior with 1 style and 2-4 persistent sepals turning often to thorns or horns. Fruit mostly 1-celled, 1-seeded, shell bone-hard; thorns after withering often set with barbs at the apex. Seed often producing 2-5 free germ-stalks.\nDistr. Several species in the Old World, but not known from Australia.

Description: Suprageneric epiphels have been entered under the family name to which they belong preceded by the indication of their rank (tribes, e.g.).\nSupraspecific epithets have been entered under the generic name to which they belong preceded by the indication of their rank (sections, series).

Description: Loveridge (1944) published a key to the species and subspecies belonging to the genus Maticora Gray. This author emphasized that a much larger material than he had at his disposal should be examined, and that all records from literature should be studied, if a clear picture of the subspecies and their ranges was to be obtained. This led me to study the forms of Maticora occurring in the Netherlands East Indies. In the present paper the subspecies of Maticora bivirgata (Boie) are discussed, and some notes on Bungarus flaviceps are given, as specimens of the latter species have been referred to Maticora by several authors.\nThe material examined by me consists of 110 specimens from the collections of the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden (67 specimens), from the Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam (24 specimens), and from the Zoologisch Museum, Buitenzorg (19 specimens). Moreover I examined one specimen belonging to the Raffles Museum, Singapore. Mr. A. Loveridge kindly sent me data on 7 specimens in the Museum of Comparative Zo\xc3\xb6logy, Cambridge (Mass.). Thus data on 118 specimens have been included in the present paper.\nAlthough I tried to trace all references to Maticora bivirgata in literature, the synonymies are certainly not complete. Many of the references are incorporated in the synonymies of the subspecies only on the base of the localities recorded. In most cases, records in literature do not mention data on the lepidosis, coloration, and sex of the specimens, and this greatly reduces their value for studies as at present undertaken.\nH. Boie (in F. Boie, 1827, p. 556) described Elaps bivirgatus from Java, Cantor (1839, p. 33) described Elaps flaviceps from Malacca, and Bleeker

Description: Delage (1884) and Smith (1906), two authors who published extremely important contributions on Rhizocephala, largely differed in their views concerning the morphology of these parasites. Both regarded the surface of the parasites touching the thorax of the host as the left side, but in other respects they were of a quite different opinion.\nDelage\'s (1884) ideas on the morphology of Sacculina were, as he stated himself, different from those of previous authors. In his opinion the dorsal region of the parasite is on the left side of the host, the ventral region on the right side of the host. The left side of the parasite touches the sternum of the crab, the right side the abdomen. As a matter of fact then the region of the stalk must be regarded as the anterior (in Delage\'s terminology "superior") part of the parasite, the region of the mantle opening as the posterior (in Delage\'s terminology "inferior") part. According to Delage\'s views consequently the mesentery is found in the ventral region of the parasite.\nThe manner of orientation of Sacculina as proposed by Smith (1906) was largely based on comparison of the morphology with that of Peltogaster. According to Smith the mesentery determines the dorsal region.\nThe region of the stalk is the posterior part of the parasite, the region of the mantle opening the anterior part. Consequently the surface of the parasite which is in contact with the thorax of the crab is the left side, the surface which is lying against the abdomen is the right side.\nIn previous papers dealing with Sacculinidae I have followed Smith in distinguishing right and left side, dorsal and ventral region, anterior and posterior extremity of the parasites in exactly the same manner. In the

Description: Whilst visiting the Leeward Group, in 1936\xe2\x80\x941937, I couldn\xe2\x80\x99t help being fascinated by the striking occurrence of representatives of the arachnid order Chelonethida on every island of this arid region which invited me to an investigation of its soil fauna. This first publication of a serial on a group in which so much taxonomical work has still to be done, may be considered as the inevitable aftereffect of these first-sight impressions.\nMy grateful thanks to JOSEPH C. CHAMBERLIN (Forest Grove, Oregon) and C. CLAYTON HOFF (Fort Collins, Colorado) for their interest in my work and to WILLIS J. GERTSCH and E. BROWNING for letting me have the loa.n of some material deposited in The American Museum of Natural History and the British Museum (Natural History).

Description: The material on which the present paper is based was collected in fresh- and brackish-water habitats on the islands of the Leeward Group, West Indies, in 1936 and 1937. For completeness sake specimens from brackish water and from some isolated salt-water habitats \xe2\x80\x94 already studied by the author (K. STEPHENSEN, 1933a and 1933b) \xe2\x80\x94 were included. It seems highly probable that the greater part of the species treated below are also represented in the litoral fauna of the open sea.\nThe occurrence of the species on the various islands may be summarized as follows (see also Table 1.)

Description: INTRODUCTION\nThe Blattid fauna of the Malayan subregion is very rich, accordingly since the earliest period of orthopterology students of Blattids have described and mentioned specimens from this region. Consequently the literature on Malayan Blattidae is greatly scattered, and though some of the authors did a considerable amount of work in compiling the most important contributions on the present subject, there is still much to be done in unravelling synonymy and distinguishing generic units and subfamilies.\nBrunner (1865) already described a great number of Malayan Blattidae.\nThe descriptions of new species by Walker (1868, 1869 and 1871) are very vague and full of mistakes, giving rise to a great deal of confusion.\nShelford largely restored the systematics of the group to good order by examining the species in the large collections which were at his disposal, including the types of Walker. After Shelford, Hanitsch published a large series of contributions on Malayan Blattidae, some of which (Hanitsch, 1915, 1923) contain a compilation of nearly the whole literature on this subject known at these times. In these and many other publications he also described numerous new species, but he scarcely made an attempt to arrange the unnatural aggregations of species into distinct, logical genera. Hebard (1929) on the other hand admirably succeeded in establishing numerous cases of synonymy and in describing new genera on a scientific base. Therefore it is largely due to him that the greater part of the confusion which occurred mainly in the Ectobiinae and Pseudomopinae has been cleared.\nIn the present paper an attempt has been made to continue the work along the principles put forward by Hebard.

Description: ... there is one point which has delayed the right conception and understanding of the evolutionary process for a long time. This was the idea that the older the morphological age of the human form is, the more it must approach the living anthropoids.\nThis conclusion did not take into account that the big apes, too, must have undergone essential changes during the same period of time in which man evolved.\nWEIDENREICH, Apes, Giants, and Man, Chicago, 1946, p. 11/12.\n\nCONTENTS\nIntroduction . . . 175 Homo sapiens L. subsp . . . 182 Pongo pygmaeus palaeosumatrensis nov. subsp . . . 187 Incisors . . . 188 Canini . . . 199 Premolars . . . 208 Molars . . . 229 Milk dentition . . . 264 The prehistoric orang-utan population . . . 269 Pongo pygmaeus (Hoppius) subsp. from the Pleistocene of Java . . . 272 Pongo pygmaeus weidenreichi nov. subsp. from the Pleistocene of S. China . . . 280 Summary; the evolution of the dentition of Pongo pygmaeus (Hoppius) . . . 284\nINTRODUCTION\nMan\'s natural interest in his nearest relatives has built up an enormous