Supplementary Notes. 
Pages 10 & 12. Cuma seorpioides and C. Edwardsii. 
Remarks. — There seems to be some diversity of opinion about the 
naming of these 2 Norwegian species of Cuma. Thus in his “History of Cru¬ 
stacea” (International Scientific Series) the Rev. Mr. Stebbing records Cuma 
Edwardsii Goodsir as a synonym of Cuma seorpioides (Montagu) If this is 
really correct —a question which only can be settled by a re-examination of 
the original specimen described by Montagu—the species recorded in the present 
account as Cuma seorpioides must have another specific name, and as Bodotria 
arenosa Goodsir is unquestionably the male of this species, it ought to be named 
Cuma arenosa, while the specific name proposed by Montagu must be trans¬ 
ferred to the 2nd Norwegian s{>ecies, the one here recorded as Cuma Edwardsii 
Goodsir. 
Occurrence. — I found both these species last summer off the Jsederen 
coast, the one, Cuma arenosa, rather abundantly off Egersund in a depth of from 
15 to 20 fathoms, coarse sandy bottom; of the other, Cuma seorpioides, only 2 
specimens, male and female, were found at Sirevaag, somewhat farther north. 
These 2 specimens, unlike those previously observed, were of a dark reddish brown 
colour. 1 ) 
Page 30. Leueon Naeica. 
Remarks. — I have been informed by the Rev. Mr. Stebbing, that the 
name of this species ought to be spelt as above, since no adjective „nasicus“ 
exists in the Latin language. (Cf. Scipio Nasica). 
Page 40. Eudorellopsis deformis. 
Distribution. — Firth of Forth, Aberdeen Bay, Firth of Clyde (Th. Scott). 
0 The latter species has also been observed by Dr. Hoek off the Dutch coast. 
