﻿CRl'STACEA MALACOSTRACA. 47 



39. Cheraphilus neglectus (i. O. vSars. 



1882. Cheraphilus neglectus G. O. vSars, Overs. Vid. vSelsk. Forh. Christiania f. 1882, Nr. 18, p. 45, Tab. I, Fig. 6. 



Occurrence. The "Ingolf has not taken this s])ecies, but it has been several times found 

 of recent \'ears at Iceland and the Faeroes. 



vSouth coast of Iceland: West of Oeirfugleskj^er, Voung-fi.sh trawl, kx) m. wire out, "Thor" 1904; 

 great quantity, very small spec. 



South coast of Iceland: 63° 27' N. L., 19° 37' W. L., 45 fm., "Thor" 1904; 8 spec. 



— - - — 63^42' - 17° 34' - 48— 37 fm., "Thor" 1903; 6 .spec. 



— — - - 63=42' — 16° 32' — 29—25 — "Thor" 1903; I — 



— _ - _ 63=50' — 16" 31' — 31 fm., "Thor" 1904; i spec. 

 Distribution, (t. O. Sars writes that this .species occurs on the south and west coasts of 



Norway in 2 to 6 fm.; it has been taken later in the Moray Firth, 7— S fni., and the Firth of Forth 

 (Th. Scott) and west of Ireland, 15 fm. (Walker). It has of course a much wider distribution. 



Remarks. Several of my specimens are adult females with eggs, but the\' are only 14— 16 mm. 

 hjug, thus considerably snuiller than the measurement given by Sars, 26 nun. I have compared my 

 specimens with a 19 mm. long, con.siderably plumper and egg-bearing fenuUe of C'/-. i/fi^lrctiis kindly 

 lent me by Prof. G. O. Sars, and thus made certain that the last-named and my specimens belonged 

 to the same .species. Both his female and my specimens differ however from vSar.s' description in that 

 the carapace and abdomen are not smooth; the carapace has always a considerable number of very 

 small raised granules, the abdomen has in part .some depressed 2 points, in part and chiefly laterally .some 

 extremely small raised granules, but these are nevertheless much weaker than in C/i. i/aiiiis Kr. Both 

 the specimen received from Sars and mine differ from C/i. nanus in that the end of the rostrum is 

 somewhat broadly rounded, whilst in Cli. i/ainis this is somewhat prolonged; further, in the latter 

 form the integuments are much more granulous with more developed posterior median spine and more 

 distinct rudiments of sublateral keels on the carapace. On the other hand, the other characters given 

 by Sars do not seem reliable: the autennular peduncles are .scarcely shorter in C//. i/ninis than in C/i. 

 iirglrcfKS. and I have not been able to find keels on the 6"' abdominal segment in Danish s])ecimcns 

 of Ch. iitnnis. There is also no dark cross-band on the 4''' abdominal segment in m\- s])ecimens of 

 C/i. iirglrct/is. — I am not at all certain that C/i. //fi;/cc///s Sars is a species distinct from C-//. iiainis 

 Kr.; it seems to me not altogether improbable that investigation of a larger material from different 

 localities will show, that Ch. neglectus is only a smoother \-ariet\-. But I accept it here as a species 

 nevertheless, as m\- material of Ch. j/ii///is is too snudl to settle the ((Uestion.' 



40. Sclerocrangon boreas Phipp.s. 



1774. Cancer Boreas Phipps, Voy. towards the North Pole, p. 190, Tab. XII, fig. 1. 

 11842. — — Kroyer, Nalurh. Tidsskr., B. IV, p. 21S, Tab. IX, P'ig. 1 — 14. 



■ A loiiij time after tliis text was written .\i)]ielir>f pulilislied his important paper: Die Dekapoilen Cruslacceii, 1906. 

 On pag. 130 lie is inclined to think, that ('//. iwi^ltvlKs (".. (). .S. must lie eancelled, and he refers it uilh a i|nery as a synonym 

 to Ch. bisphwiiis Hailst., while ('/;. minus Kr. is considered a synonym to the last-named form. 



