6 
was based on the fact that it was much larger and lived on another species. The animal 
did in fact prove to differ from Choniostoma mirabile; however, the two reasons alleged by 
the authors proved to be wrong, for a female with eleven ovisacs found on Hippolyte Gai- 
mardw and proving to be identical with the species on Hipp. polaris, was even somewhat 
smaller than the largest Choniostoma mirabile. Consequently Chon. Hansenii is found on 
two species of Hippolyte, whereas Chon, mirabile has as yet only been noticed on one. 
A. Giarp and J. Bonnier: Sur un Epicaride parasite d'un Amphipode et sur un 
Copépode parasite d’un Epicaride (Comptes-rendus de l’'Acad. des Sciences, 29 avril 1889). 
This preliminary note is only mentioned here for the sake of completeness, as its contents 
are largely worked out in the following publication. 
A.Giarp and J. Bonnizr: Note sur UAspidoecia Normani et sur la famille des 
Choniostomatide (Bull. scientifique de la France et de la Belgique, T. XX. 1889, p. 341—72, 
Pl. X—XI). In this paper the authors have partly described and figured the Aspidoecia 
Normani, the new species and genus established in their preliminary note, partly given a 
very detailed critique of all that has been written on the subject. Each of these parts de- 
serves a special mention. Of their new species the authors have examined a female with 
five oyisacs and two males attached to it, sitting on the back of the carapace of Hrythrops 
microphthalma G.O.Sars (belonging to Mysidze ver) under an obliquely placed Epicarid, 
Aspidophryxus Sarsi Giard and Bonnier. Accidental circumstances led them to adopt the 
following conclusion as the most plausible: »qu il existe un rapport soit de parasitisme soit 
de mutualisme« (p. 353) between Aspidoecia and Aspidophryxus (which is a mistake; 9: below); 
they say that the female Copepod »était reliée a / Aspidophryxus par un appareil fixateur« 
(p. 344), though such an object does not exist, and they declare that it »adhérait certainement 
a la Mysis par une ventouse« (p. 344), which is not the case either, as it is attached by 
what later on I shall call »the adhesive plate«, a congealed substance forming a plate-like 
cover on the forehead in front of the mouth, and which is secreted by the »glandes cémen- 
taires« mentioned by the authors (p. 349). In their description of the female (p. 347—50) 
they mention »les deux points chitineux« (entrances to the receptacula seminis), and they 
give a correct description of the genital apertures, except that the small opening which they 
call »pore de fécondation«, and of which they say that it serves »évidemment a l’entrée des 
spermatozoides«, does not serve this purpose at all. They have found »la ventouse« on the 
head, but they cannot make out whether the mouth is situated at the bottom of it (which 
it does), or whether it is found »a la partie supérieure de la ventouse, celle-ci servant 
uniquement a la fixation du parasite«. Finally, they have overlooked the antennule, the 
maxillule and the maxilla. However, it must be borne in mind that having had only one 
individual which they were not allowed to dissect, it would be unfair to expect them to be 
able to study the organs of this small and extremely difficult animal much better than they 
have done. With regard to the male the case is different; it is much easier to examine, 
besides they had two specimens. After having studied my own material of the same species, 
