13 



A. Bella Vallk: y,Gammarim del Golfo di Napoli- (Fauna and Flora des Golfes von 

 Neapel, 20. Monographie, 1893, 4to). In the chapter »Parassiti del Ganimarini« (p. 289—90) the 

 author informs us of some observations he has made, and suggests some hypotheses about 

 SpheeroneUa. The species on which Salensky found his SpmroneUa Leuclcartii is said to be 

 Microdeutopus gryUotalpa, and the author lias f(jund it in the locality indicated by the 

 discoverer of the species. He further states that he has found the same SphfProndJa on 

 Ampelisca diadema Costa, where it lives under the same conditions as Podascvn DdJa Vallei 

 G. and B. And he proposes three hypotheses, viz. that Spha-rondln changes colour according 

 to its residence, in older to look like the eggs of the two different species of hosts; that 

 it does not live at the expence of the host itself, but by consuming its progeny, and that 

 for some time after having left the egg, the young SplKerondla is entopaiasitic , not ecto- 

 parasitic, developing itself in the oviduct and consuming the eggs successively as they appear. 

 In support of this last conjecture he states that he has found on an Amiwlisca a Spliwronclla 

 mth its multitude of ovisacs, which host at the same time »racchiudeva in uno dei smii 

 ovidutti, verso I'estremo esterno, uno piccolissima SpheeroneUa, in cni nondimeno erano giii ben 

 visibili le nova quasi mature« (p. 290), but in spite of this rather peculiar observation, his 

 conjecture seems unduly hasardous, as an attentive perusal of Salensky's excellent treatise 

 with the description of the pupa stage, wliich follows the larval stage, would have shown 

 its absurdity. Besides, Giard and Bonniei- have refuted all these hypotheses in a latei' 

 paper; they justly maintain that there is a physiological reason for this castration (» castration 

 paiasitaire«) effected liy the para.site on its host, and they consider the form found on Am- 

 pvVwca as a ditferent species from Spli. Lcuckartii, in which no doubt they are right. So I 

 think I need not throw further light on these questions. — 



About Rhizorhina Ampeliscce H. J. H. the author in his Bibliogra|)lua, i». 8<I7, only 

 writes: »Questo nuovo Copepodo rassomiglia molto alia <S/j/ji«/oweZ/a ie«c/;ar//, Salensky. The 

 quality of this resemblance is treated in the following pages. 



A. GiAiU) et J. BuNNiKu: ■•^Sur deux types nouveaux de Ghoniodomutidee des eoles de 

 France: Sjjhfcronella microcephcda, G. et B. etScdensh'a hiherosa, G. et B. (Comptes-rendus 

 de I'Acad. d. Sc, 25 sept. 1893). The contents of tliis preliminary note appear in a later 

 essay, much enlarged and — in one point — altered. 



A. GiAKD et J. Bonnikr: 'Contributions a I'etnde des £j)ic(frid<'s (Bull. Scientif. de la 

 France et de la Belgique T. XXV, 1895 — the part headed: y>Les SphreroneUid(e-',i).A:62-'6b, 

 PI. XII — XIII). This part calls for a detailed comment. 



The authors descril)e and figure the female and eggs of SpheeroneUa microcephatn 

 G. etB., a species found on foiu- specimens of Anipeliscu tenuicornis Lilljeborg fi-om Croisic. 

 Doubtless the frame of the head is incorrect, for a list like the one represented in the 

 illustration (PI. XII, tig. 43) as going from the outermost posterior angle towards the median 

 line behind the base of the maxillae, does not exist. If there is a connection between the 

 frame and the sub-median skeleton -- which by the by they have not seen — but wliich is 



