was based on the fact that it was much larg:er and lived on another species. The animal 

 did in fact prove to dilt'er from Choniostoma mirabile; however, the two reasons alleged by 

 the authors proved to be wrong, for a female with eleven ovisacs found on Hippolyte Gai- 

 mardii and proving to be identical with the species on Hipp, polaris, was even somewhat 

 smaller than the largest Choniostoma mirahile. Consequently Chan. Hansenii is found on 

 two species of Hippohjte, whereas Chon. mirahile has as yet only been noticed on one. 



A. GiARD and J. Boxnier: Sur tin iupicaride parasite d'tin Amphipode et stir tm 

 Copepode parasite d'un ^incaride (Comptes-rendus de I'Acad. des Sciences, 29 avril 1889). 

 This preliminary note is only mentioned here for the sake of completeness, as its contents 

 are largely worked out in the following publication. 



A. GiARD and J. Bonnier: Note sur I'Aspidoecia Normani et sur la famille des 

 Choniostomatidce (BnW. scientifique de la France et de la Belgique, T. XX, 1889, p. 341— 72, 

 PI. X — XI). . In this paper the authors have partly described and figured the Aspidoecia 

 Normani, the new species and genus established in their preliminary note, partly given a 

 very detailed critique of all that has been written on the subject. Each of these parts de- 

 serves a special mention. Of their new species the authors have examined a female with 

 five ovisacs and two males attached to it, sitting on the back of the carapace of Erythrops 

 microphthalma G. 0. Sars (belonging to Mysidae verai) under an obliquely placed Epicarid, 

 Aspidophryxus Sarsi Giard and Bonnier. Accidental circumstances led them to adopt the 

 following conclusion as the most plausible: »qu'il existe un rapport soit de parasitisme soit 

 de mutualisme« (p. 353) between Aspidoecia anA Aspidophryxus (which is a mistake; o: below); 

 they say that the female Copepod »6tait reli6e a J! Aspidophryxus par un appareil fixateur« 

 (p. 344), though such an object does not exist, and they declare that it »adh6rait certainement 

 a la Mysis par une ventouse« (p. 344), which is not the case either, as it is attached by 

 what later on I shall call »the adhesive plate« , a congealed substance forming a plate-like 

 cover on the forehead in front of the mouth, and which is secreted by the »glandes c6men- 

 taires« mentioned by the authors (p. 349). In their description of the female (p. 347 — 50) 

 they mention »les deux points cliitineux« (entrances to the receptacula seminis), and they 

 give a correct description of the genital apertures, except that the small opening which they 

 call spore de f6condation«, and of wliich they say that it serves »6videmment a rentr6e des 

 spermatozoides«, does not serve this purpose at all. They have found »la ventouse« on the 

 head , but they cannot make out whether the mouth is situated at the bottom of it (which 

 it does), or whether it is found »a la partie sup6rieure de la ventouse, celle-ci servant 

 uniquement a la fixation du parasite«. Finally, they have overlooked the antennulge, the 

 maxillulae and the maxillae. However, it must be borne in mind that having had only one 

 individual which they were not allowed to dissect, it would be unfair to expect them to be 

 able to study the organs of this small and extremely difficult animal much better than they 

 have done. With regard to the male the case is different; it is much easier to examine, 

 besides they had two specimens. After having studied my own material of the same species, 



