11 
consists in his indicating new a locality for Choniostoma on the other side of Nova Zemblia 
opposite to mine (the Kara Sea), and that an otherwise very deserving author has committed 
a most peculiar mistake. That is all; whether I ought to have mentioned the subject is a 
matter of opinion; at the time I thought it might as well be left out. 
I shall pass over several other remarks which might call for censure, and take up 
some hypotheses set forth rather hesitatingly by the authors, p. 352—-53. After having 
declared themselves at a loss to understand that a Choniostoma with its ovisacs can cause 
a swelling in the carapace of a Hippolyte entirely resembling that which is produced by 
Gyge Hippolytes, they write: »I] nous parait beaucoup plus vraisemblable d’admettre que le 
Jopépode a infesté les Hippolytes déja parasités par les Gyge, et quwil supplante les Epicarides 
ou tout au moins profite pour se loger de la déformation produite par ces derniers«. To 
this conclusion they add a doubt which I think rather irrelevant, and say further: »Néau 
moins en rapprochant l’éthologie d’Aspidoecia de celle de Choniostoma, il nous semble 
bien probable qu'il existe un rapport, soit de parasitisme, soit de mutualisme, entre ces 
parasites et les Epicarides des genres Aspidophryaus et Gyge«. However, they go still 
further. They have found a genus of Epicaridea, Podascon G. and B., on a species of the 
genus Ampelisca, and Salensky has found numerous examples of a Spheronella in all stages 
on an Amphipod of an altogether different family. Here we should think it would be rather 
difficult to establish a connection between the Epicaridea (Podascon) and the Choniostomatidee 
(Spheronella), which live »exactement dans les mémes conditions«; nevertheless they continue: 
»on peut se demander s'il n’a pas existé autrefois entre ces deux groupes de parasites des 
rapports analogues a ceux que nous avons cherché a démontrer entre les autres Choniosto- 
matidés (Aspidoecia et Choniostoma) et certains Epicarides«. With the word »autrefois« 
the authors resort to the past, but it will be impossible in a case like the present one to 
gain any perfect or imperfect knowledge concerning the former state of things. We confess 
that this invention would be ingenious if — as sometimes’ happens where an excellent thing 
is carried to an extreme — it had not overstepped the limit and become ridiculous. 
My experience, which is based on very extensive researches, enables me to declare 
that, as far as the present time is concerned, these hypotheses, which the authors repeat 
with additional remarks in two later papers, are entirely destitute of foundation. 
Of infested Isopoda this work mentions four examples of three species with three species 
of Spheronella; of Cumacea with parasites in the marsupium twenty-four examples belonging 
to six species (the parasites belong to five species), and of these six species I have examined 
several hundred specimens, in order to find those that were infested. Of two species of 
Cumacea seventy-three instances were found with (two species of) Homocoscelis under the 
carapace; finally, one hundred and forty examples of Amphipoda (belonging to twenty-eight 
species) were found and proved to be infested with twenty-eight species of Spheronella and 
Stenotocheres. Of these twenty eight species of Amphipoda I have examined several thousand 
specimens. So the result is, that of all three orders together I have seen about two hundred 
9 
