13 
A. Denna VALLE: »Gammarini del Golfo di Napoli« (Fauna und Flora des Golfes von 
Neapel, 20. Monographie, 1893, 4to). In the chapter » Parassiti dei Gammarini« (p. 289—90) the 
author informs us of some observations he has made, and suggests some hypotheses about 
Spheronella. The species on which Salensky found his Speronella Leuckartii is said to be 
Microdeutopus gryllotalpa, and the author has found it in the locality indicated by the 
discoverer of the species. He further states that he has found the same Spheronella on 
Ampelisca diadema Costa, where it lives under the same conditions as Podascon Della Vallei 
G. and B. And he proposes three hypotheses, viz. that Spheronel/a changes colour according 
to its residence, in order to look like the eges of the two different species of hosts; that 
it does not live at the expence of the host itself, but by consuming its progeny, and that 
for some time after having left the egg, the young Spheronella is entoparasitic, not ecto- 
parasitic, developing itself in the oviduct and consuming the eggs successively as they appear. 
In support of this last conjecture he states that he has found on an Ampelisca a Spheronella 
with its multitude of ovisacs, which host at the same time »racchiudeva in uno dei suoi 
ovidutti, verso l’estremo esterno, uno piccolissima Spheronella, m cui nondimeno erano gia ben 
visibili le uova quasi mature« (p.290), but in spite of this rather peculiar observation, his 
conjecture seems unduly hasardous, as an attentive perusal of Salensky’s excellent treatise 
with the description of the pupa stage, which follows the larval stage, would have shown 
its absurdity. Besides, Giard and Bonnier have refuted all these hypotheses in a later 
paper; they justly maintain that there is a physiological reason for this castration (» castration 
parasitaire«) effected by the parasite on its host, and they consider the form found on Am- 
pelisca as a different species from Sph. Leuckartii, in which no doubt they are right. So I 
think I need not throw further light on these questions. — 
About Rhizorhina Ampelisce H.J.H. the author in his Bibliographia, p. 897, only 
writes: »Questo nuovo Copepodo rassomiglia molto alla Spheronella Leuckarti, Salensky. The 
quality of this resemblance is treated in the following pages. 
A. Giarp et J. Bonnier: »Swr deux types nouveaux de Choniostomatide des cotes de 
France: Spheronella microcephala, G. et B. et Salenskia tuberosa, G. et B. (Comptes-rendus 
de l’Acad. d. Sc., 25 sept. 1893). The contents of this preliminary note appear in a later 
essay, much enlarged and — in one point — altered. 
A. Grarp et J. Bonnier: » Contributions a Vétude des Epicarides (Bull. Scientif. de la 
France et de la Belgique T. XX V, 1895 — the part headed: » Les Spheronellides, p. 462—85, 
Pl. XII—XIIT). This part calls for a detailed comment. 
The authors describe and figure the female and eggs of Spheronella microcephala 

G. et B., a species found on four specimens of Ampelisca tenuwicornis Lilljeborg from Croisic. 
Doubtless the frame of the head is incorrect, for a list like the one represented in the 
illustration (Pl. XII, fig. 43) as going from the outermost posterior angle towards the median 
line behind the base of the maxille, does not exist. If there is a connection between the 
frame and the sub-median skeleton -— which by the by they have not seen — but which is 
