﻿CRUSTACEA MAI.ACOSTRACA. II. jjy 



In the last-named work Sars has given a good representation of this species, viz. figures of a 

 female withont marsnpinm from above and from the .side, together with drawings of appendages. He 

 presented the Copenhagen Mnsenm witli two of his co-types, bnt they differ in some points and 

 especially in the antennulae from his figures and description. A comparison between my fig. i g, drawn 

 from one of his co-types, with his figures on PI. XVI shows, that the antennuke are much more slender 

 than figured by Sars and above all that the moderately slender terminal joint is slightly shorter than 

 the two preceding joints combined, while according to Sars that joint is much shorter than the sum 

 of the two preceding joints and \ery thick. Furthermore my figures of second and sixth legs (fig.s. 

 ill and ii| as compared with vSars' figures of second and seventh legs show that the thoracic legs 

 drawn by him have the joints conspicuously shorter in proportion to thickness than in my Norwegian 

 specimens presented by him. As to the relative length of thorax and abdomen, Sars' figures agree well 

 with my Norwegian specimens, but in these the uropods are more remote from the end of abdomen 

 (fig. I k) than according to his figures, in which the uropods reach beyond the end of abdomen which 

 is not the case in his co-types mentioned, while it exists in all the "Ingolf specimens. Sars stated 

 that he had taken S. cvlimhata at several places "in depths ranging from 50 to 200 fathoms". 



Judging from these statements one might be tempted to suppose that Sars had mixed up two 

 different species. But though the "Ingolf" material is small, it originates from three localities with 

 the depth from about 1200 to near 1700 fathoms, two specimens from the cold and two from the warm 

 area, and these specimens show various differences. Furthermore, the antennuke show features inter- 

 mediate between vSars' figures of S. cylhidrafa and his two co-types mentioned; the thoracic legs are 

 in two "Ingolf" specimens about as drawn by Sars, in two other specimens still shorter and thicker. 

 For such reasons I am apt to think that all specimens seen by Sars or me are in reality variations 

 of the same species. Bnt it may be of some significance to add some further notes on the "Ingolf" 

 specimens from each localit}'. 



The female from Stat. 113 (fig. la), which measures 3.7™'" in length, is more slender than any 

 other of my specimens and than that figured by Sars, as it is even slightly more than nine limes as 

 long as broad. But its antennulse (fig. ib) have the fourth joint shorter and thicker than in the 

 specimens from the other stations, though less thick than in Sars' drawing (fig. la"), while the chelae 

 are more robust and the thoracic legs (figs, i c and i d) shorter and thicker than in the specimen 

 figured by Sars or in m\' specimens from other places. The chela; (fig. i b) are sligluh' more than 

 twice as long as broad; the abdomen is longer than in specimens from an\' other source, being as 

 long as the five posterior thoracic segments plus more than half of second segment combined, while 

 the sixth abdominal segment is only a little longer than the three preceding segments combined. 

 In Sars' figures and in his two co-types the abdomen is scarcel\- as long as the five posterior thoracic 

 segments combined, bnt its sixth segment is as long as the four preceding segments together. — The 

 subadult male from the same place — Stat. 113 — agrees in all respects with the female and its 

 antennulce are but slightly thicker, but it has moderately developed pleopods, the rami of which are 

 somewhat long in proportion to the peduncle and the .setic on their terminal margin short (as 

 figured by vSars). 



The subadult male from the "Ingolf Stat. 24 (fig.s. le and if) agrees as to the relative length 



