174 



REMARKS. What I described and figured in >.Dijnn»l)na-Togtet , as Ch. mmtliih\ 

 were specimens of this si)ecies; besides, I was of the opinion that all uiy specimens on 

 Hipp. Gaimardii, and an exceedingly large specimen on Hipp, polaris, belonged to the 

 same species. Giard and Bonnier, in their paper of 1889, supposed that the large specimen 

 detected on Hipp. x>oJari^, Avas of another species, especially because it occurred on another 

 species of host, and they named it Ch. Hanseni, but without material of course they could 

 give no description. Their supposition proved right to a certain extent, as the parasite on 

 Hipp. poJaria did really belong to a species which ditfers from Ch. mimhilc, but it became 

 evident at the same time that Ch. Hansenii is found in Hipp. Gaimardii as well. After 

 this discovery I examined in our Museum all the specimens kept of both species oi Hippolyte, 

 and in a very large material of Hipp. Gaimardii from the Kara Sea I succeeded in finding 

 two more specimens infested with small parasites, one of which is the above-mentioned spe- 

 cimen with larvae and pupae on its gills, whereas the parasites on the other specimen belong 

 to Ch. Hansenii. I suppose the larvae and pupae found to pertain to this species, because 

 they occurred together with the small female (ISiimm. in length), but 1 must point out that 

 tliis proof is not quite decisive, as allowance must be made for the possibility that these 

 larvae and pupae may belong to the following species, or some of them to Ch. mirahile, 

 others to Ch. Hansenii. It is worth noticing that I have not been able to detect any 

 difference between larvae taken out of the ovisacs of either species. 



Max Weber describes ovisacs taken in the branchial cavity of Hipp. Gaimardii 

 from the part of the Murman Sea which is South of Nova Zemblia, and these ovisacs 

 decidedly belong to tliis genus, but the species cannot be determined. — J. Sparre Schneider 

 in: »Tromse Museums Aarshefter 14, 1891 «, p. 112, says that be has found »Choniostoma 

 mirabiUsx on a specimen of Hijyp. Gaimardii from Hilleso in the Malangen-Fjord (on p. 98 

 he furthermore states that the same specimen was also infested mth a Fhrijxus [Hemiarthrus 

 ahdominalis [Ky.]]), and that he had moreover observed it near Tromso; but it cannot be ascer- 

 tained here either, whether it is Ch. mirabile, Ch. Hansenii, or both species, which have been seen. 



In a large specimen of Hippi. Gaimardii from the Davis Straits, lat. 66° 30' N., 

 long 54** 50' W., forty fathoms, under a swelling of the carapace eight ovisacs occurred, 

 and the foremost gills were reduced and contained two pupae, but as the female was wanting, 

 in this case also it is impossible to determine the species. However, we may state at once 

 that not this species, but Ch. Hansenii was discovered later on at the coast of West-Greenland. 



2. Choniostoma Hansenii Giard and Bonnier (without description). 



(PI. X, fig. tja— 6b; pi. XI, flg.2a— 2f.) 



Choniostoma Hansenii Giard and Bonnier, Bull, scient. de la France et de la Belgique T. XX, 1889, 



p. 3G0 [without descriplion]. 

 — . — Giard and Bonnier, Bull, scient. de la Fr. et d. 1. Belg. T. XXV, 1895, p. 479. 



