15 
Sp. Bate. During the interval between the appearance of the first publication and that of 
the principal essay 1 corresponded with the authors about these questions, and as they quote 
some of my written statements, [ must make a few remarks. It is not only the fact that 
Sph. microcephala had been found in Denmark on Ampelisca typica and in France on Amp. 
fenwicornis, Which I may have thought »trés curieux«, but in examining a large quantity 
of Danish material of Amp. fenwicornis, not only had [ found no specimen of Sph. microcephala 
whatever, but I had found several specimens of a very different species (Sph. /ongipes n. sp.), 
so it struck me as »very curious« that Amp. tenwicornis from the Danish coast had a parasite 
which it had not near the French coast, while in the latter locality it had a parasite belonging 
to the same genus, and which was not found on the Danish Amp. fenwicornis, though this 
very parasite lives in Denmark, but had passed on to Amp. typica. However, I will add 
that future researches may prove both species of parasites to live on both species of hosts 
in either locality. In this case we shall wonder no longer, but until further notice we 
have reason to find the circumstance curious. 
Subsequently the authors enter upon a critique of Della Valle’s observations and 
hypotheses. To the species found by Della Valle on Amp. diadema Costa, they give the 
name of Sph. diadema G. and B., which consequently is put down without description. 
However, as I have briefly stated the principal points of Della Valle’s observations on a 
former page, I may pass them over here; I will only add that [ am not prepared to judge 
of the value of the reflections set forth by Giard and Bonnier about the colour of the eges 
of parasites — though I can say for certain that Della Valle’s opinion is wrong. On 
p. 462—63 the authors repeat the above criticised suggestion of a connection between Cho- 
niostomatides and Epicaridea: »Les Choniostomatides sont-ils des parasites des Hpicarides 
dont ils prendraient la place en les faisant périr, ou les Hpicarides facilitent ils seulement 
Tentrée des Choniostomatides en produisant sur les Malacostraca des détormations et une 
castration parasitaire plus ou moins complete? C'est cette derniére hypothése qui nous 
parait actuellement la plus vraisemblable«. 
That Della Valle had found a species of Spheronella on two specimens of Ampelisca 
diadema, and a species of the genus Podascon (an Epicarid) on two other specimens of the 
same Amphipod indeed was the only fact of interest which had occurred since their previous 
work in 1889, but this fact only proves that a fourth species of Choniostomatide has been 
added to the three, of which it has been stated above that they live on species infested 
with HEpicaridea, and this is of the slightest importance compared with the statistics I give 
on p. 11—12, and the conclusions drawn from these statistics and from my observations. 
We now arrive at the most unfortunate idea advanced by these authors, their 
grouping of Choniostomatide H. J. H. and of Herpyllobiide H. J. H. as subfamilies (with 
the suffix ine) of the family Spheronellide G. and B. In order to refute this combination 
— one of the most inappropriate I have ever met with in Carcinology — and some hypotheses 
connected with it, I shall also have to mention the family Herpyllobiide. 
