bo 
22 
or imaginary gaps by a number of unproved assertions and unwarranted hypotheses regarding 
structure, biology and classification. 
Nowadays many authors have a remarkable weakness for publishing innumerable 
immature notes, for building zoological card-houses, drawing up genealogical trees and 
inventing theories and hypotheses, especially where they know very little. Where they have 
acquired considerable knowledge based on thorough study of a large material, as a rule, 
they abstain more from hazardous conjectures. One result indeed has been obtained: Zoo- 
logy has been encumbered with endless preliminary notes, with papers abounding in faulty 
and defective representations and unaccountable postulates and reflections, so as to render 
the study of it troublesome to an almost unsurmountable degree. 
Jutes Bonnier: Résultats scientifiques de la Campagne du »Caudan« dans le 
Golfe de Gascogne, Aout-Septembre 1895. Edriophthalmes. (Amn. de l'Université de Lyon, 
1896)1). In an appendix to this valuable work the author describes and figures a new 
species, Spheronella sedentaria Bonn., which he has discovered in the branchial cavity of 
Cyclaspis longicaudata G. O. Sars of the order Cumacea, in a depth of 960 metres, lat. 
449 5‘N., long. 4°45‘ E. He found an adult female, four ovisacs and a small specimen, 
which he considers to be a young female, but which is no doubt a male. The species 
belongs to my new genus Homoeoscelis, and comes very close to my H. minuta. He begins 
by describing the small specimen, and his description of its body, the borders of its head, 
its antennule, mavxillipeds, trunk-legs and caudal stylets is essentially correct. He also 
corrects Salensky’s erroneous conception of the caudal stylets as a third pair of legs, but 
he has certainly overlooked the maxillule (comp. my drawings of the males of my species: 
pl. IL, fig. 1i—1k and pl. XII, fig. 1f—1g). which are never wanting in any species ot 
the whole family — unless the outer part of the mandibles possibly may be the larger part 
of the maxillule, which might indeed be supposed from the drawing. The hairs surrounding 
the membranous border of the mouth are overlooked, and the basal joint of the maxilla which 
he mentions (his »maxillipéde interne<) does not exist; what he takes for this joint is no 
doubt a part of the sub-median skeleton. As will appear from my subsequent description, 
the only feature by which the male and a young female of the same size of the genus 
Homoeoscelis can in all cases be distinguished from each other, is the distinctness of the 
genital apertures in the female. The author has found no such apertures, and this circum- 
stance, as well as the occurrence of the animal together with an adult female, indicates 
that it must have been a male. The author's comparison of the female with the small 
specimen is correct; only his description of the genital area calls for a few remarks. He 
1) A special copy of this paper, kindly sent me by the author, arrived on Febr. 11th 1897, so that 
the present remarks had to be written and inserted in my work when a large part of the fair copy of it 
was already written. 
