NO. 3594 SARSIELLA — KORNICKER 33 



Not Sars-ieUa capsula, Sars, 1888, p. 229, pi. Ill (figs. 5-7), pi. X [probably 

 Sarsiella, new species].— MuUer, 1894, p. 214, pi. 4 (figs. 4-6, 8-10, 22, 25, 

 27-29, 31, 33-35, 37, 48), pi. 8 (figs. 6, 7) [probably Sarsiella, new species]. — 

 Brady, 1911, p. 395 [listed, probably Sarsiella, new species]. — Rome, 1942, 

 p. 8 [listed, probably same species as Miiller, 1894]; 1964, p. 4 [listed]. 



Holotype: S. capsula Norman, 1869, unique, female. 



Norman (1869, p. 293) described S. capsula from a single speci- 

 men collected in the vicinity of the Shetland Islands. His descrip- 

 tion included only the external features of the carapace and was 

 not illustrated. Brady and Norman (1869, p. 677, pi. LX: figs. 1-4, 

 18) emended the description and illustrated the carapace and the 

 maxilla. In addition to the Shetland Island specimen, they had 

 available specimens collected hj Norman from Valentia, Ireland, and 

 the Gulf of Naples, Italy. They state (1896, p. 678) that the male is 

 miknoAvai. 



A Shetland Island specimen and 3 specimens from Valentia are 

 together on a dry slide (1911. 11. 8, M 3985) in the Norman Collection 

 at the British Museum (Natural History). It is not possible to 

 establish which of the specimens is from the Shetland Islands. For- 

 tunately, Brady and Norman (1896) correctly identified the Valentia 

 specimens so that all 4 specimens on the slide may be used to char- 

 acterize tlie species. The slide contains 2 adult females and 2 juve- 

 niles (pi. 3a-d). 



Specific locality data on the back of the slide (10 miles off Balta, 

 Shetland, 73 fath.) does not agree with that given in Norman's 1869 

 publication (St. Magnus Bay, Shetland, 30-60 fath.); therefore, it is 

 possible that the specimen on the slide is not the holotype. I am 

 inclined to believe, however, that wrong locality data was published. 

 Otherwise, I think that another specimen from the Shetland Islands 

 would have been in the Norman Collection at the British Museum. 

 If the holotype is lost, however, the specimen on the slide is at least 

 a specimen from the same general locality and identified by the same 

 author and therefore the best specimen available on which to base the 

 species. 



Comparison of the carapaces of the specimens of S. capsula from 

 the Shetland Islands and Valentia with specimens identified as 

 5. capsula by Miiller (1894), Brady (1911), and Rome (1942) and 

 with the description of S. capsula by Sars (1888) revealed that they 

 are not conspecific. Sarsiella capsula Norman has in the postero- 

 dorsal region a flat-topped, crestlike prominence, whereas the other 

 species have 2 conical projections and probably belong in 1 or more 

 new species. 



On the other hand, when the carapaces of specimens identified 

 by Miiller as Sarsiella levis Miiller, 1894, were compared with *S^. 



233-803—67—^3 



