128 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 
III. COPEPODA. 
These fall into two rather natural subdivisions, including the free-living and the 
parasitic forms, respectively, though the line of division is not strictly a taxonomic one. 
The list of free-living copepods, including 25 (+1 ?) species, is derived from the published 
reports of W. M. Wheeler (1900) and of R. W. Sharpe (1910).* Wheeler listed 30 spe- 
cies for the ‘‘ Woods Hole Region,” though the majority of these were recorded only from 
waters lying well without the limits of the region considered in the present report. Mr. 
Sharpe examined collections taken by himself in the tow net throughout the season of 
1908, as well as material which had already been gathered by the schooner Grampus 
and by Mr. V. N. Edwards. He has catalogued 60 species, of which, however, more 
than half are extralimital. 
The parasitic copepods of this region, of which 58(+2?) species are comprised in 
our catalogue, have been listed by S. I. Smith (in Verrill and Smith, 1873), R. Rathbun 
(1884-1887), M. J. Rathbun (1905), and by C. B. Wilson in a series of recent papers. We 
are indebted to the last-named authority for examining the manuscript of our annotated 
list of this group, as well as for furnishing a valuable set of notes which have been incor- 
porated in the latter. The nomenclature and the classification adopted are his. 
Searcely any copepods, either free or parasitic, are recorded in the Canadian cata- 
logue of marine invertebrates. The Plymouth list comprises 24 free-living species and 
one parasitic. Herdman has listed 195 copepods (chiefly free-living) from the Irish 
Sea, while Graeffe’s catalogue for the Gulf of Trieste includes 56 free-living copepods and 
110 parasitic species. Here again, it is quite unlikely that these figures are at all indic- 
ative of the actual wealth of the copepod fauna at the respective points. 
IV. CIRRIPEDIA. 
Of this order, 17 species are listed for the region, though two of these are included 
somewhat doubtfully. Of these only two (Balanus eburneus and B. porcatus),and possibly 
a third (B. crenatus), have been taken during our Survey dredging. Most of the species 
listed in the catalogue have, however, been collected at one point or another by our 
parties. One species, Chthamalus stellatus, although very abundant at present, seems 
to have escaped the notice of local zoologists and had not apparently been recorded 
for New England waters until attention was recently called to it by one of the present 
writers.” Another (Balanus tintinnabulum) had not, so far as we know, been definitely 
recorded for points within the region. This last is, however, an exotic form, and is not, 
probably, to be included in our fauna. 
Verrill and Smith (1873) listed 13 species of barnacles, most of which, however, 
were not recorded from definitely indicated points within the limits of our region. All 
but one of our 17 species are included by Miss Rathbun in her “List of the Crustacea,” 
though not in all cases recorded for strictly local waters. 
Scant attention has been given, however, to the sessile barnacles of our coast, and 
it is not unlikely that further studies will considerably increase the number of known 
species. Notwithstanding this probable incompleteness of our list, it will be seen 
@ The list of Rhode Island species prepared by Williams (1906) has not been considered here, since the records relate only to 
Narragansett Bay. 
b Science, Sept. 17, 1909. (See also footnote on page 190 of this report.) 
