Miscellaneous. 83 
Coloration brown, without traces of spots. The total length 
of the largest acauained specimen 170 millims. 
I possess two specimens from the western and northern 
coasts of Norway, both brought up in a dredge by Prof. G. 
QO. Sars searching for sea anim vals. The larger specimen (total 
length 170 millims. ) was taken at Floré, on the Bergen coast, 
in 1873 : the other is a younger individual (total length 
100 millims. ), and taken from a depth of 30 fathoms at Boda, 
north of the Arctic Circle (lat. 67° 15! N.), in 1874. 
Christiania, November 10, 1874. 
MISCELLANEOUS. 
On the Embryogeny of the Rhizocephala. 
To the Editors of the Annals and Magazine of Natural History. 
GentLeMEN,—In your Journal for November 1874, p. 383, M. 
Giard imputes an error to me of which I am not guilty. He 
says:—‘‘An error similar to that of M. Gerbe has been made by 
Professor Semper, who describes as furnishing a larva of a very 
peculiar form a Peltogaster of the Philippine ‘Tslands, of which he 
has evidently observed the embryos only after the first moults, when 
they already affected the Cypridine form.” 
I trust you will be so kind as to allow me to offer some remarks 
on this matter. 
Having observed the Cypridine larva of a Peltogaster in the 
Pelews already in 1861, and having sent my few remarks on them 
to the editor of the ‘ Zeitschr. fiir wiss. Zool.’ in 1862, which ap- 
peared in 1863, I was evidently unable to know that F. Miller 
would describe in the year 1863 (Arch. f. Naturgesch. xxix. Febr.) 
the second larva of the Suctoria: at that period only the first of 
them, the Naupliws-form, was known. I was thoroughly justified, 
therefore, in designating a larva diverging from the only known ones 
as being peculiar ; I might then have called it rightly very peculiar, 
although I have not done so. It was peculiar not only for its un- 
known form, but also for its two eyes, whilst the larvae of Rhizo- 
cephala till then known had only a single one. 
M. Giard imputes to me an error on the ground of his belief that 
all Rhizocephala must have a Nauwplius-larva as the first larval stage. 
But this is only a dogma. M. Giard has not examined the species 
discovered by me in the Pacific; he has therefore no formal right 
to impute to mea mistake in my observations. In the totally closed 
sac of the mother only such Cypridine larvee were found, no Nauplius- 
larvee or empty skins which I might have ascribed to such. Why, 
then, should not here, as is the case with so many other crustaceans, 
6* 
