RIHANO TILL K. SV. VET.-AKAD. HANDL. BAND 27. AFD. IV. N:0 S. 51 



in 1809: 



Stat. 2*). lat. 70' 2T N., long. 22° 35' W., Scoresby Sonud, (hi])Q 

 Stewart, depth 13 — 1« m., raud, boulders, algje, 30 VII, 

 one spec. 



Tromsö, depth GO — 70 m., 22 VI, many spec. Wulff. 

 West Spitzbergen, Green Harbour, depth 110 m., 30 H, 

 one spec. Wulff. 



North Spitzbergen, Danish Gat, depth 20 — 30 m., 7 VII, 

 many spec. Wulff. 



in 1900: 



stat. 1. West Spitzbergen, Ice Fiord, Coal Bay, depth 50 ra., stony 

 bottora with dead shells, 16, VI — 20 VI, det. LÖNNBERG. 

 » 3. ibidem, depth 50 — 100 m., stones, 22 VI, scarce, det. LÖNN- 

 BERG. 



The first one wlio siispected that Hippolyte turgida and 

 //. Fhippsii were only female and male resp. of tlie same 

 species was CtOés wlio, in the paper cited above, says: »Cen- 

 turias perlustravi Spetsbergenses, nec feminam umquam in veni; 

 Hippol. turgidte Kröyer, valde afRnis et sodalis, inter spe- 

 cimina 100 circiter masculum nullum vidi, quare, et differen- 

 tiis tam exiguis, inclinat animus, ut illara hnjus marem ar- 

 bitrer.» 



As far as 1 know, Buchholz is the only author snb- 

 sequent to GoÉs who does not confirm this opinion. He bases 

 the contraiy supposition on the fact that he found amongst 

 about ?}0 specimens of Hippohjtc Phippsii one female of a length 

 of 33 mm., and because males, although relatively very scarce, 

 are nevertheless, to be observed in H. turgiäa. For this reason 

 he does not consider them as diflPerent sexes of the same species, 

 but only as varieties. As Smith has shown, young ones of 

 both forms are indistinguishable, except in the sexual cha- 

 racteristics, and, in this sense, GoÉs' statement is not strictly 

 true, but, with regard to fulJgrown specimens, Smith says 

 that he ne ver saw males agreeing with H. turgida as de- 

 scribed by Kröyer. As to the above raentioned male of //. 

 turgida, Smith does not hazard the supposition that tliere 

 was some error in BrcnhoLz' determination ; yet it can hardly 

 be explained otherwise, as no .subsequent author, as far as 

 I know, mentions a similar case, but all agree in regarding 

 both forms as identical. 



