14 
never wanting in any Spheronella, there must also be a list behind the maxillipeds. How- 
ever, the whole frame seems to me most problematical, nor have I found it in specimens 
which, as far as I can judge, belong to the same species. I should not have dared to 
suppose so great a fault in this illustration, if IT had not seen their type specimen of the 
male of Aspidoecia, which enabled me to ascertain their astonishing mistakes in the repre- 
sentation of several organs, especially in the maxilla and the maxillipeds (comp. above p. 7—8). 
Moreover, they have decidedly overlooked the maxillule, which I have never found wanting 
in any female of this family. About the maxille (oles maxillipédes internes«) they say that 
they are »formés de quatre articles« (p. 464), but this is wrong, for these limbs in all 
females, males and larve of this family contain at most three joints, and the two last joints 
are even frequently so completely fused that we only find two distinct joints, as shown in 
my illustration (pl. VIIT. fig. 2d) of the head of this species. Neither do I doubt that their 
representation of the maxillipeds with their strange flexion and the second joint thick and 
quite as long as the first, is entirely wrong. Their description and figure of the genital 
region (p.465, pl. XII, fig. 44) is not successful either. By the words of the text: »un are 
de cercle chitineux (c) qui, postérieurement, se termine par deux branches...« and by the 
illustration, it is seen that they have turned the whole part wpside down, as in reality both 
branches turn forward towards the head of the animal, seen from the ventral side (comp. 
my fig. 2a on pl. VIII). The chitinous arch with its branches is pretty correct. Their 
representation of the genital apertures and their muscles is perfectly correct, while the 
apertures marked a and designed as being »les ouvertures d'une paire de grosses glandes 
... les glandes collétériques« — are the orifices of the receptacula seminis (comp. my de- 
scription below and my figures of several other species of the genus). In fig. 2f on pl. VIIT, 
as in several other instances, I have not represented these orifices, but after a renewed 
examination of the same species, I can state that the orifices, leading to the receptacula seminis 
in my Sph. microcephala G. and B., are found precisely in this place, and from these openings 
each of the middle-sized receptacula — forming an oblong sac — curyes gently backward 
and somewhat inward towards the centre. I am at a loss to understand anything about 
these glands illustrated by the authors. They also represent a pair of very large »receptacula 
seminis« as opening into the genital apertures; though unable to explain what they are, I 
am positive that they are not what the authors suppose them to be. Finally, what they 
describe as follows: »Au centre méme de l’aire génitale il existe un espace cordiforme clair 
(ec), avec trois petites vésicules granuleuses aux trois sommets, la supérieure étant la plus 
grande et la plus nette; toute cette partie est située profondément, sous le tégument« is 
certainly no organ or organs, but accidental formations produced by coagulation or the like. 
The authors have taken their species on Ampelisca tenuicornis Lilljeborg from Croisic 
(south coast of Brittany), and their determination of the host has been confirmed by the 
eminent Carcinologist, Prof. G. O. Sars. The specimens described later on in this work, 
which I have considered as belonging to the same species, were taken on Ampelisca typica 
