T came to results which ditfered very much from tlie figures and desci-iptions of the authors. 

 Though feeling convinced that I had studied animals belonging to their species, I wanted 

 to make quite sure of it and asked the Rev. Canon A. M. Norman to lend me the animals which 

 had served as tyijes to the French authors, and I received a male and a female. The male 

 was kept in a preparation made by Mssrs. Giard and Bonnier, but it was considerably 

 flattened in an oblique direction, these animals — as stated above — not being able to with- 

 stand the pressui'e of a glass-cover; its position was about the same as that shown on 

 pi. XI in their paper. The spot where the animal was found was encircled by a red ring 

 on the glass-cover, and there could be no doubt that it lay just as it had been placed by 

 the authors. I did not open the preparation, as all I wished to see was clear enough. I 

 found what I expected: perfect similarity between this specimen and my own males — , and 

 the statements of the authors proved to be incorrect in the following important points: 



1) »Les pattes nageoires font compl6tement d6faut, ou sont r6duites a des appendices 

 difficilement visibles (pt.)«. The first part of this sentence is right, but to judge from the 

 specimen in hand, the two dots marked pt. are spots possessing a slight deviation in the 

 refraction of light, and situated beneath the inner side of the skin; according to my expe- 

 rience with other animals, they are accidental. 



2) »La partie post6rieure du corps est divis6e en deux renflements arrondis renfermant 

 chacuu une sphere a contour tres net dout le contemi est form6 de quatre spheres appliqu6es 

 les uues contre les autres et d^form^es par pression r^ciproque comme les blastomeres d'un 

 oenf au stade quatre de segmentation. Les deux spht^roldes sont des spermathe(iues < (p. 346 — 47). 

 In the following pages I also call the two globules spermatothecEe , though I am not abso- 

 lutely certain that they are not testicles; so far we agree, but no further. In the male of 

 their preparation there was no vestige of a fold in the middle of the body. The spermato- 

 thecae showed inward folds which were not nearly so regularly aiTanged as it would appear 

 from theu' description aud figuring of the contents, nay they seemed to be empty. A careful 

 and exact adjustment of the microscope showed that the granular substance usually contained 

 in the animal was outside the spermatothecae, though a less accuiate adjustment might give 

 the impression that it also was inside; filled spermatothecae have a very different look. The 

 folds are easily explained by the flattening of the animal through the pressure to which it 

 had been exposed. 



3) About the antennulae they write: »elles sont form^es d'une saillie basilaire sur 

 laquelle est ins6r6 un article unique en batounet termini par une pointe courte«. However, 

 this » saillie basilaire « in their preparation is considerably longer and somewhat different in 

 shape from their figure of it; it is in fact the antennulae itself (comp. my figure pi. XII, 

 fig. 3k.). What they call »un article* is the olfactory seta; nor is its extremity so slender 

 and pointed as they represent it. 



4) They say about the mouth (p. 346): »La membrane de la ventouse est soutenue 

 par de fins rayons chitineux constituant les generatrices du tronc-cone. Ces rayons out 6te 



