examining any depths inaccessible from the shore, I obtained 38
different species, of which 34 are new, which, with the previously known
species (principally described by Dana) gives 60 Brazilian Amphipoda,
whilst Kroyer in his 'Gronlands Amfipoder' was acquainted with only 28
species, including 2 Laemodipoda, from the Arctic Seas, although these
had been investigated by a far greater number of Naturalists.)

The sole unimportant exception which I have hitherto met with is
presented by the genus Brachyscelus,* (*According to Milne-Edwards'
arrangement the females of this genus would belong to the "Hyperines
ordinaires" and the previously unknown males to the "Hyperines
anormales," the distinguishing character of which, namely the curiously
zigzagged inferior antennae, is only a sexual peculiarity of the male
animals. In systematising from single dead specimens, as to the sex,
age, etc. of which nothing is known, similar errors are unavoidable.
Thus, in order to give another example of very recent date, a celebrated
Ichthyologist, Bleeker, has lately distinguished two groups of the
Cyprinodontes as follows: some, the Cyprinodontini, have a "pinna analis
non elongata," and the others, the Aplocheilini, a "pinna analis
elongata": according to this the female of a little fish which is very
abundant here would belong to the first, and the male to the second
group. Such mistakes, as already stated, are unavoidable by the
"dry-skin" philosopher, and therefore excusable; but they nevertheless
prove in how random a fashion the present systematic zoology frequently
goes on, without principles or sure foundations, and how much it is in
want of the infallible touchstone for the value of the different
characters, which Darwin's theory promises to furnish.) in which the
heart possesses only two pairs of fissures, as it extends forward only
into the second body-segment, and is destitute of the pair of fissures
situated in this segment in other forms.* (* I find, in Milne-Edwards'