161 Mr. J. Lubbock on two new species of Calanidse. 



which I have very carefully examined, have been placed in dif- 

 ferent genera, because the former has no superior eyes, and the 

 latter has four ; in all other respects, however, at least as far as 

 regards their external anatomy, they agree very closely. The 

 same may be said of Labidocera Darwinii and F. Bairdii. Fol- 

 lowing however in the steps of my predecessors, I was obliged 

 to act as I have done, for if I altered their classification I was 

 bound to propose a better, which I must confess I could not do. 

 It seemed best, therefore, to retain an arrangement, which, if 

 it is rather artificial, is undeniably convenient, and to delay 

 attempting to form natural genera, until the discovery of new 

 species, and a more intimate acquaintance with the old ones, and 

 especially with their internal anatomy, should give more hopes 

 of success. 



Note on Anomalocera Patersonii. 



For the purpose of comparing together the right male an- 

 tennae of all the species in which they are so much developed, I 

 applied to Dr. Baird to know if he could furnish me with any spe- 

 cimens of A. Patersonii, Tern. Neither he, however, nor the Bri- 

 tish Museum, has any of Templeton's specimens, but he sent me 

 some Calanidce marked A. Patersonii, which have been recently 

 brought from the North Atlantic by Dr. Sutherland. To my great 

 surprise, however, I found that these, far from having no supe- 

 rior eyes, had four ; each of the two normal eyes being divided. 

 Considering that in this family the number of the eyes is a va- 

 riable character, being sometimes one, sometimes two, and some- 

 times three, naturalists will not be surprised at there being also 

 a case in which they are five in number ; still it is interesting 

 to find a Crustacean with five eyes. At first I thought this 

 must be a new species, nay, even a new genus, for it seemed 

 highly improbable that such accurate observers as Dr. Baird, 

 Goodsir, and Templeton should all three have overlooked so 

 curious a character. The structure of the fifth pair of legs, of the 

 antennae, the maxillae and maxillipeds, the shape of the cephalo- 

 thorax, and all the other parts in which specific diff'erences are 

 usually found, agreed however so closely with the corresponding 

 organs of A. Patersonii, that I asked Dr. Baird to examine these 

 five-eyed specimens, and give me his opinion on the subject. 

 This he did with his usual kindness, and in a letter to me, he 

 says, "1 have no doubt that the specimens collected by Dr. 

 Sutherland are the true Anomalocera." 



The species which I have described as Monops grandis would 

 have belonged to the genus Anomalocera ; I was therefore rather 

 doubtful whether to retain Templeton's name, alter the generic 

 character and describe my species as a new genus ; or to refer 



