454 Rey. Canon A. M. Norman on British Schizopoda 
LXVII.—British Sehizopoda of the Families Lophogastridz 
and Kuphausiide. By the Rev. Canon A. M. Norman, 
MAL DiC a. eS .5n0cce 
In Bell’s ‘ History of British Stalk-eyed Crustacea ’ a single 
species of these families was described which had been found 
by Couch in the stomach of a mackerel at Polperro. It was 
named Thysanopoda Couchit, Bell, and is the Nyetiphanes 
Couchii of the present paper. 
In 1861 I briefly described in the Brit. Assoc. Report, 
from Shetland, Ctenomysts alata, Norman, which is the 
Lophogaster typicus of M. Sars. 
In 1868 I recorded in the ‘ Last Report of Shetland 
Dredging” (Brit. Assoc. Report) Thysanopoda norvegica, 
M. Sars, = Nyctiphanes norvegica of this paper. The younger 
specimens there referred to subsequently proved to be refer- 
able to Thysanoessa neglecta, Kroyer. 
In 1872 Mr. G. Sim recorded in the ‘ Scottish Naturalist,’ 
as found at Aberdeen, Rhoda Jardineana, Sim (= Boreo- 
phausia Raschii, M. Sars), Thysanoessa aberdonensis, Sim 
(= Thysanoessa neglecta, Kroyer), and under a name Thysa- 
noessa borealis, Norman (non G. O. Sars, 1882) the Nema- 
toscelis megalops of the present paper. Mr. Sim wrote :— 
“This species [ 7. aberdonensis| is found in considerable 
abundance on our sandy beach in the months of March 
and April, along with 7. borealis, a species named by the 
Rev. A. M. Norman, for the identification of which I am 
much obliged to that gentleman. The principal difference 
between 7. borealis and 7’. aberdonensis is in the first pair 
of feet, which in Z. borealis are terminated with from 
eighteen to twenty long sharp spines, all proceeding from the 
extremity of the limb, while in 7. aberdonensis eighteen 
spines are arranged along the sides of the last segment of 
that member, and two more placed on the wrist. The body 
and rostrum also differ in the two species.” Mr. Sim here 
greatly exaggerates the number of spines at the extremity of 
the limb, which are (usually) eight; but one of my mounted 
specimens might well be mistaken to have sixteen, since the 
animal being about to cast its skin, the whole of the new 
spines are seen within the old ones, and would easily deceive 
in such a mounted specimen if the observer was not prepared 
for the deception. In consequence of this inaccuracy with 
respect to the number of spines it appears to me that the 
