VI 1 TAGE SKOOSrsEIii; 



It srciiis t(i me rather pmltahle that ('. bureaiis, G. 8. BltADY aiul A. M. Non.MAN. 181»() 

 is a .svnonyni nf this form; the specimens described and reproduced by these writers were 

 presumablv caught oS the west coast of Norway. The description and figures are, however, 

 exceed inglv inconipk^te and uncertain; it woukl be superfluous to enter upon a detailed criticism 

 ol' them; I shall only ])oint out here as an illustration that on the ciidojxxlite of the female secinid 

 antenna the end joint is furnished with six long bristles, a number that is not huuid in a 

 single species of this genus; two g-bristles are drawn instead of one. 



I have myself verified the correctness of the determination of Chorcalis, ('. W . S. Ai i;l- 

 \ II. I, II s, 1S!I9, pp. 62 and 66; cf. p. 717 below. 



('. boreaUs, H. H. ({I.'AN. 19U2 is included in the above list of synonyms because the speci- 

 mens on which this statement is based were defined b\' G. ( >. SAli.s^ who distinguished between 

 (_'. borealis and ('. ntaxintd on that occasion. 



C. borealis, P. T.Clkm:, 1903 (= C.k, P. T. Ci.KM-: and O. Petteksson, 1903) was only 

 iiu'luded in this list after 1 had myself subjected the original material to a careful verificatory 

 examination. 



It seems to me rather probable that ('. borealis. V. VA\"1;a, 1906 is also identical with this 

 species. Only two specimens were caught by the P 1 a n k t on Ex p e d i t i o n, a mature 

 male and a mature female, both at the same station, in the Labrador current. A number of 

 differences can certainly be noted, e. g. the shape of the female shell, the glands along the posterior 

 margin of the shell (cf. pi. Ill, fig. 57) and the armature of the d-bristle on the male first antenna. 

 We should also note this author's statement with regard to the sculpture of the shell: ,,Die 

 Struktur der Schale ist zienilich fein, aber deutlich, in rhombischen Feldern bestehend." This 

 statement seems to support the idea that in these two specimens the sculpture was more weakly 

 developed than in the specimens from the west coast of Scandinavia. \\Tiat seems in my opinion 

 specially to support the idea of identity with the form dealt with above is the information as to 

 the length of the shell; the male was 2,35 mm., the female 2,9 mm. long, i. e. in this character 

 they agreed very closely with the specimens from Lofoten. A re-examination of these specimens 

 is desirable. 



The h)llowing statements about finds of this species from the west coast of Norway and fn)m 

 SkagerRak and the North Sea are also presumably to be referred to this species. As, however, 

 they have no verificatory information and as it is not clear whether a distinction has been 

 drawn between C borealis and C. maxima, it seemed to me best not to include them in my list of 

 synonyms. These finds are as follows: (', borealis, G. 0. Sars, 1869, p. 360, 0. NORDGAAIUt, 

 1898, p. 17, 1905, p. 40, C. H. OSTENFELD, 1906, p. 96 (part.), C. H. OsTENFELD and C. Wesen- 

 l!ERG-LUND, 1909, p. 112 (part.), C. Apstein, 1911, p. 167 (part.) and E. JORGENSEN, 1912, 

 pp. 14, 16. 



The name C. borealis G. O. SAIiS is also mentioned in the hiUowiiig ])laces in the literatur(>: 

 (!. (). Sars, 1886, p. 75, E. Vanir)FFEN, 1897, p. 285, cf. below, p. 717, G. W. S. Aiiilvii.i.iL s, 

 1898, p. 42, this author 1899, pp. 38, 58 (= P. T. Gle\ E, 190(»), cf. below 

 }). 717, G. W. MiLLEi!, 1901, p. 4. cf. below p. 717. G. H. Fowlei;. 1903, p. 121; Tr. Scott, 

 J 905, p. 228; E. KoEFUED, 1907, pp. 150, 151. 156. 157, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 167, 170, 



