354 M. R. Leuckart on the Genus Notopterophorus. 



The catalogue belonging to it, however, indicated that the fol- 

 lowing species were described under the order Pcecilopodi: 

 Edwardsia fulgens, Costa (Sapphirina, Auct.) ; Cecrops Latreillei ; 

 Gunenotophorus globularis, n. ; Notopterophorus elongatuSji*..; and 

 N. elatusj n. Our animal consequently belonged to one of the two 

 last-named genera ; and, indeed, judging from the etymology 

 (although the derivation of Gunenotophorus * is quite unintelli- 

 gible to me), to Notopterophorus. As, however, Costa describes 

 two species of this genus, it remains doubtful which name belongs 

 to the figure referred to. Plate 2 contains, besides the animal 

 in question (fig. 4), two other allied Crustaceans (figs. 1 & 2), 

 possibly, however, only different states of the same species, 

 which, instead of the wing-like processes on the back of the 

 thorax, possess a hump-like inflation, apparently filled with 

 young. The name Notopterophorus would hardly apply to these, 

 so that the two figures are perhaps to be referred to the pro- 

 blematical Gunenotophorus. (I did not see the third plate, which 

 might possibly give us some information on this point; at 

 least, I have no recollection of it.) 



As, however, I have already remarked that Costa's figure 

 differs in many respects, especially as regards the dorsal wings, 

 from my parasite, I may justly describe it here as Notoptero- 

 phorus Veranyi. 



I am not, however, the only person who has observed this 

 Crustacean. On mentioning my parasite to Dr. Krohn, at the 

 time of the meeting of naturalists at Bonn, I learnt that this 

 distinguished student of the fauna of our coasts had likewise 

 met with it, and indeed not unfrequently, in various species of 

 Phallusia (at Naples). Dr. Krohn was so kind as to place at 

 my disposal the drawing which he had made, together with the 

 notes connected with it. This drawing is reproduced in Plate 

 XVI. B. fig. 2, and the notes, wherever they differ from, or serve 

 to complete my own, are incorporated in my description, with 

 the name of the observer. 



Our Crustacean (fig. 1) is two lines in length, and, if we do 

 not take into consideration the wing- like processes of the thorax, 

 has a cylindrical body gradually decreasing posteriorly, with a 

 head, thorax, and abdomen. The thorax exhibits four, and the 

 abdomen five segments, which are all distinctly separated from 

 each other ; so that our animal has a certain resemblance to a 

 Woodlouse, especially as the limits of the head towards the first 



* Professor Leuckart seems here to be misled by the beautiful simplicity 

 of the etymology, which, however, is, unfortunately, by no means without 

 parallel. Gunenotophorus is evidently compounded, in the simplest fashion, 

 of the Greek words yvvrj and i/coro^opoy, and is doubtless intended to 

 indicate that the female carries something on her back. W. S. D. 



