ART. 15 COPEPOD CRUSTACEAN'S OF CHESAPEAKE BAY WILSON 21 



ANOMALOCERA PATERSONI Tcmpleton 



Anonialocera patersoni Templeton, Trans. Ent. Soc. London, vol. 2, p. 35, pi. 5, 

 figs. 1-3, 1837. — G. O. Saes, Crustacea of Norway, vol. 4, p. 139, pis. 92-94, 

 1902. 



Occu7Tence. — A few specimens were obtained in the bottom net 

 at the 100-fathom line in the outside ocean. 



Remarks. — Wheeler remarked that it appeared at Woods Hole, 

 Mass., only after stormy weather and prevailing southwest winds. 

 If it could be blown in there from the Gulf Stream, it might be 

 carried into Chesapeake Bay from the 100-fathom line. Brady said 

 tnat it is generally distributed over the Atlantic Ocean and the 

 North Sea, as well as in the Mediterranean, and that it often occurs 

 in large numbers. 



CALANUS FIN^LARCHICUS (Gunnerus) 



MonoGuhis finmarchieus GtrNNEBUs, Acta Hafnia, vol. 10, p. 175, figs. 20-23, 



1765. 

 Calanus fimnarchicus G. O. Sars, Crustacea of Norway, vol. 4, p. 9, pis. 1-3, 



1901. 



OcGurreThoe. — Confined to the outer bay and found there only 

 during winter and mostly at the surface. Apparently abundant in 

 the outside ocean during summer. 



Remarks. — This very cosmopolitan and widely known species is 

 extremely abundant on our Atlantic coast farther north. In the 

 Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Gulf of Maine it constitutes the 

 bulk of the plankton. At the latitude of the mouth of Chesapeake 

 Bay (37° N.), it does not seem to be so abundant. The fact that 

 it was found only in the outer bay and was confined to the winter 

 season corroborates the opinion that it is essentially a northern form. 

 The latitude of this bay is probably near the southern limit of its 

 distribution on our Atlantic coast. 



CALANUS HELGOLANDICUS (Glaus) 



Cetochiltis helgolandicus Ci,aus, Die frei lebenden Copepoden, p. 171, pi. 26, 



figs. 2-9, 1863. 

 Calanus helgolandicus G. O. Sars, Crustacea of Norway, vol. 4, p. 11, pi. 4, 



1901, 



Occurrence. — Found in considerable abundance in the bottom net 

 from depths of 40 and 20 fathoms in the outside ocean. 



Remarks. — Sars regarded this as more of a southern species than 

 G. finTnarchicv^., and suggested that the two have generally been 

 confused by various authors. He apparently succeeded in differenti- 

 ating the two species, and his decision has been accepted by Scott 

 and by Pearson but not by some other authors. Among the latter, 

 With devoted a long discussion to the solution of the question 



