15 



Sp. Bate. During the interval between the appearance of tlie fii-st publication and that of 

 the principal essay I corresponded with the authors about these questions, and as they quote 

 some of my written statements, I must make a few remarks. It is not only the fact that 

 Sph. microcephala had been found in Denmark on Ampelisca typica and in France on Amp. 

 lenuicornis, which I may have thought »tres curieux«, but in examining a large quantity 

 of Danish material of^4w^). tenuicornis, not only had I found no specimen of Sph. microcepJiala 

 whatever, but I had found several specimens of a very different species (Sph. hngipes n. sp.), 

 so it struck me as »very curious« i\\»iAmp. tenuicornis from the Danish coast had a parasite 

 which it had not near the French coast, while in the latter locality it had a parasite belonging 

 to the same genus, and which was not found on the Danish Amp. lemticornis , though this 

 very parasite lives in Denmark, but had passed on to Amp. ft/pica. However, I will add 

 that future researches may prove both species of parasites to live on both species of hosts 

 in either locality. In this case we shall wonder no longer, but until further notice we 

 have reason to find the circumstance curious. 



Subsequently the autliors enter upon a critique of Delia Valle's observations and 

 hypotheses. To the species found by Delia Valle on Amp. fJimJcmd Costa, they give the 

 name of Sjih. diarlrma G. and B., which conse(iuently is put down without description. 

 However, as I have briefly sstated the principal points of Delia Valle's obseivations on a 

 former page, I may pass them over here; I will only add that I am not prepared to judge 

 of the value of the reflections set forth by Giard and Bonnier aljont the colour of the eggs 

 of para.sites — tliongh I can say for certain that Delia Valle's opinion is wrong. On 

 p. 462-63 the authors repeat the above criticised suggestion of a connection between Cho- 

 niostomatidae and Epicaridea: >.Les Choniostoniatides sont-ils des parasites des Epicarides 

 dont ils prendraient la place en les faisant p6rir, ou les Epicarides tacilitent ils senlement 

 rentr6e des Choniostoniatides en produisant sur les Mnh(ro.<:/r(ira des defoi-niations et une 

 castration parasitaire plus ou moins complete V C'est cette derniere hypothese (jui nous 

 parait actuellement la plus vraisemblable«. 



That Delia Valle had found a species of SphteroneJJa on two specimens of Ampelisca 

 dindema, and a species of the genus PodciRcon (an Epicarid) on two other specimens of the 

 same Amphipod indeed was the only fact of interest which had occui-red since their previous 

 work in 1889, but this fact only proves that a fourth species of Choniostomatid* lias been 

 added to the three, of which it has been stated above that they live on species infested 

 ^\■itil Epicaridea, and this is of the slightest importance compared with the statistics I give 

 on \\. 11 — 12, and the conclusions drawn from these statistics and from my observations. 



We now arrive at the most unfortunate idea advanced by these authors, their 

 (ironping of Choniostomatidce H. J. H. and of Heipi/JloljiidfC H. J. 11. an snh-families (with 

 the ffuffix inm) of the family SphcnronMidep G. and B. In Older to refute this combination 

 — one of the most inappropriate I have ever met with in Carcinology — and some hypotheses 

 connected with it, I shall also have to mention the family Herpylhjbiidaj. 



