11. GENERAL HISTORICAL VIEW. 



Unfortunately I am obliged to go much into detail in this chapter, not only in order to 

 give a summary of our previous knowledge and its defects, but also and particularly 

 in order to throw light on a number of very objectionable postulates, reflections and theories 

 put forward by Mssrs. A. Giard and J. Bonnier in their two (four) papers. Very short contri- 

 butions (by G. 0. Sars and J. Sparre-Schneider) are mentioned in the special part. 



W. Salensky: Sphceronella Leuckarti, ein neuer SchmarotzerJcrebs (Archiv fill" Natur 

 geschichte, 34ter Jahrgang, 1868, p. 301—322. Taf. X). The author has given a very 

 extensive account of this new genus and species, the iirst form which was discovered of 

 this family. He has found females , males , eggs, larvae and pupee, in fact all stages, and 

 on the whole his descriptions are good, but unfortunately the illustrations are rather rude, 

 which is indeed a pity, as the species happens to belong to the most difficult group of the 

 large genus. I do not think it necessary to point out some slight differences between the 

 author's account and my own, e. g. his incorrect statement of the number of joints in the 

 antennulae of the larvae etc., but it must be mentioned that he has overlooked the rudimentary 

 antennae (2nd pair) in the male and the female, that his very detailed description of the 

 rostrum is not correct, as he has taken the hairs outside the membranous border of the 

 mouth for »Radiarfalten« in the membrane itself (p. 303), and that his long description of 

 the more solid chitine lists of the rostrum is too diagrammatic. This is connected -with his 

 quite wrong idea on the maxillulae, about which he writes: »Es sind namlich zwei solcher 

 Kiefern vorhanden, welche eingliedrig sind und an ihrem Ende eiue Borste tragen« (comp. 

 my description below). On the other hand it must be acknowledged that he has found and 

 described correctly the legs and the caudal stylets of the female, but in the male he mis- 

 interprets the stylets, taking them for a third pair of legs ; he has found spermatophores etc. 

 Furthermore, his representation of the genital area is defective, and he has overlooked 

 receptacula seminis, but he is right in stating that the female has no anus. He also gives 

 a somewhat detailed account of the embryology of these parasites, making out their stages 

 of development till they appear as full-grown larvae, but this part of the development I have 



