378 



described in the present work as It', nitittif" Clans, but differs in some particu- 

 lars, especially a^ regards the structure of the anterior antenna 1 , so that it 

 e\ideiitlv ought to he regarded as specifically distinct. As to the genus Pxeudo- 

 .-///.> iif Brady. 1 am still of opinion, that it cannot he supported, since the 

 character mi which it is based, the bi articulate condition of the outer ramus 

 of the 1st pair of legs, is also found in a species, IT. assimilis Q. 0. Sars, which 

 BO closely resembles the type species, II'. m>///7/',.. Baird. as hardly to be distin- 

 guished without dissection. 



( >' < "//' in; . Several specimens of this form were taken, some years ago, 

 [nun tidal pools at Haugesund, west coast of Norway. Prof. Brady also found 

 this species in tidal pools, and it would thus seem to be a pronouncedly 

 littoral form. 



Ditti-iln(tii>n. British Isles (Brady). 



Page 154. 

 Awiphiascus inintttn* (Clans). 



Distribution. -Pol&r Island north of Grinnell Land (2nd Fram Exp.). 



Page 156. 

 For Amphiascus imus (Brady) 



Kead: A)ni>liinxrn.'< r/trians (Norm. & Scott). 



*t> nlitl'in ritriintft. Norman & Scott, Copepnda new to science from Devon and Cornwall. Ann. 



Mag. Nat. Hisc. Ser. 1 Vol. XV, p. 284. 



Ji'i murk*. I find that the form decrihed in the present account on page 

 156 a- Amphiascus mm* Brady is uni|iiestionally identical with that recorded in 

 tin- \i-ar llMi.") by Mosrs. Nonnann and Scott under the name of Sti'iiltrliti ntr'tnii* 

 anl >iilNCi|Urntly more fully described and figured in their beautiful work ,A'ru- 

 l)rvon and ( 'oi'iiwall". As these gentlemen also record the true 

 in"' ot Urady, these 2 forms must in reality be specifically distinct. 

 In describing the present species I have also pointed out some apparent differences, 

 y in the structure of the last pair of legs. 



Page 166. 



i<i*ft<s h/siinhis (Urady). 



'mit. Polar Islands north of (.-Jrinnell Land (2nd Fram Exp.). 



