U 
T came to results which differed very much from the figures and descriptions of the authors. 
Though feeling convinced that I had studied animals belonging to their species, I wanted 
to make quite sure of it and asked the Rev. Canon A. M. Norman to lend me the animals which 
had served as types to the French authors, and I received a male and a female. The male 
was kept in a preparation made by Mssrs. Giard and Bonnier, but it was considerably 
flattened in an oblique direction, these animals —as stated above — not being able to with- 
stand the pressure of a glass-cover; its position was about the same as that shown on 
pl. XI in their paper. The spot where the animal was found was encircled by a red ring 
on the glass-cover, and there could be no doubt that it lay just as it had been placed by 
the authors. I did not open the preparation, as all I wished to see was clear enough. I 
found what I expected: perfect similarity between this specimen and my own males —, and 
the statements of the authors proved to be incorrect in the following important points: 
1) »Les pattes nageoires font complétement défaut, ou sont réduites & des appendices 
difficilement visibles (pt.)«. The first part of this sentence is right, but to judge from the 
specimen in hand, the two dots marked pt. are spots possessing a slight deviation in the 
refraction of light, and situated beneath the inner side of the skin; according to my expe- 
rience with other animals, they are accidental. 
2) »La partie postérieure du corps est divisée en deux renflements arrondis renfermant 
chacun une sphere a contour trés net dont le contenu est formé de quatre sphéres appliquées 
les unes contre les autres et déformées par pression réciproque comme les blastoméres d’un 
oeuf au stade quatre de segmentation. Les deux sphéroides sont des spermathéques« (p. 346—47). 
In the following pages I also call the two globules spermatothece, though I am not abso- 
lutely certain that they are not testicles; so far we agree, but no further. In the male of 
their preparation there was no vestige of a fold in the middle of the body. The spermato- 
thecz showed inward folds which were not nearly so regularly arranged as it would appear 
from their description and figuring of the contents, nay they seemed to be empty. A careful 
and exact adjustment of the microscope showed that the granular substance usually contained 
in the animal was owtside the spermatothece, though a less accurate adjustment might give 
the impression that it also was inside; filled spermatothecw have a very different look. The 
folds are easily explained by the flattening of the animal through the pressure to which it 
had been exposed. 
3) About the antennule they write: »elles sont formées d'une saillie basilaire sur 
laquelle est inséré un article unique en bdtonnet terminé par une pointe courte«. However, 
this »saillie basilaire« in their preparation is considerably longer and somewhat different in 
shape from their figure of it; it is in fact the antennule itself (comp. my figure pl. XII, 
fig. 3k.). What they call »un article« is the olfactory seta; nor is its extremity so slender 
and pointed as they represent it. 
4) They say about the mouth (p. 346): »La membrane de la ventouse est soutenue 
par de fins rayons chitineux constituant les génératrices du tronc-céne. Ces rayons ont été 
