NO. 1573. PARASITIC COPEPODS—WILSON. 453 



that it is a new species, since the female is unknown. In his descrip- 

 tion he has mistaken the large glands connected with the double 

 frontal filament for eyes; he also speaks of two "braune Knopf chen" 

 situated farther back on the dorsal surface of the carapace. He 

 gives but a single figure for the last three pairs of swimming legs, 

 which he declares are just alike, even to the number of spines and 

 setiP borne on the different joints of the rami. If this be true, the 

 species can not possildy be a Dinematura, since in that genus the 

 male, like the female, has the rami of the second and third legs 

 three-jointed. In Echthrogaleus also the exopods of these legs are 

 three-jointed, while the endopods are two-jointed. 



On the other hand, Burmeister's species can not be a Nesippus or 

 Perissopus male, because the rami of the fourth legs and the abdomen 

 in those genera have each but a single joint. 



Furthermore the statement of Beneden (1892 a, p. 220) that Bur- 

 meister's Dinematura gracilis and Leach's Panda rus carcliarix are the 

 male and female of the same species is obviously wrong. 



For Dinematura gracilis lacks the accessory lobes on the posterior 

 margin of the carapace, there are no legs visible on the genital seg- 

 ment, and while the abdomen is two-jointed the joints are very 

 une({ual. In Gangliopus the rami of the fourth legs are one-jointed, 

 and the abdomen is like that of Pandarus, two-jointed with the joints 

 equal. This leaves us the single genus Demoleus amongst those 

 whose males are known, and to this we find the present species corre- 

 sponding in every particular except size. 



But here the discrepancy is a serious one, for Burmeister's species is 

 only half the size of the other males of the genus. 



There is also the possibility that Burmeister did not examine the 

 second and third legs very closely; indeed his statement that they are 

 just like the fourth pair, even in the number of spines and set*, would 

 imply as much, for no Nogaus male has yet been discovered of which 

 this would be true. 



If he did not examine them closely, or if his specimen was immature 

 and the segmentation not fully com])leted, then there is an agreement 

 in every particular, even size, with the males of the genus Dinematura, 

 and Burmeister located his species correctly. 



His specimen was a little over 6 mm. in length; the adult males of 

 Dinem,atura are 8 or mm. long. 



It is, of course, impossilde to decide definitely in such a case, since 

 the very data essential to a decision are lacking, but the presumj^tion 

 seems to be in favor of the latter proposition. 



NOGAGUS GRANDIS Steenstrup and Liitken. 

 Nogagiis grandis Steenstrup and Lutken, 18(J1, p. :1S(), pi. x, fig. 19. 

 Probably a male Demoleus (see p. 349). 



