﻿94 



COPEPODA 



meters. From the west coast of Greenland it has been recorded from "Lille Karajakfjord" by Van- 

 h of fen. It is, as seen from the above, fairly common in the Iceland-Fteroe channel between loo^o 

 meters, and so it is in the Fceroe-Shetland channel; its shallowest record here is according to Farran 

 (iQii p. 97) "from a hanl of loo— o meter in 143 meters of water from a station lying to the east of 

 Shetland". It has as far sonth as 55° h. N. "several times been met with in small numbers in the 

 deep water of the Atlantic slope off the south west coast of Ireland at depths of from 500 to 600 

 fathom.s". The species has not been taken by the Monaco; the records from the Gauss and the Siboga 

 Expeditions seem to be very doubtful, and shall presently be discussed. 



The Ino-olf and the Thor's records of this species from Baffin Bay, Danmark Strait, the sea 

 north of Iceland and the Atlantic south of Iceland as far south as 60 to 51° L. N. complete the picture 

 of this species as a North Atlantic and arctic species from the intermedial layers. 



Remarks. That the described species is identical with Sars' G. tcnuispinus does not seem 

 doubtful, in spite of the slightly bifurcate rostrum and the stiff broad bristles on the inner margin of 

 the second basal segment of the fourth pair of legs, which were not mentioned by the author; the 

 latter character was well described by Wolfenden for his .species G. borealis; Wolfenden has later 

 on identified his species with G. tenuispinus, but has in the list of species, probably by a slip of the 

 pen, given it the name G. piuigcns Giesbr. 



Wolfenden has identified specimens from Cap and the Antarctic ocean with the northern form; 

 he has examined specimens from the northern as well as the southern regions without being able to 

 find great differences; he may be right; but as the differences between the species are often so small, 

 and as too few characters are generally used by the authors, I prefer to look forward to further in- 

 vestigations, not the least on account of the different localities. It is on that account that I have 

 given so full a description of this species. 



A Scott is certainly right in regarding his father's species Euchate Hessii var. simiiis (1894 

 pp. 58—59 PL VI figs 24—25) as being related to Gaidius\ but as its size is only 2-2 mm., as the terminal 

 segment of the left pes V is somewhat swollen at the base and as it "wants the prominent rostrum 

 of Euc. Hessei''' (his figure does not show any rostrum), I do not think his identification ought to be 

 accepted. A.Scott identifies his G. simiiis Th. Scott with G. ptmgais Gbt; in this he may possibly 

 be right. He writes (p. 52). "I regard the form described by Sars as Gaidius tcnuispinus ... to be 

 identical with this species". His figures of the pes V and of the rostrum of the male, which are 

 somewhat insufficieirt, do not support his view. 



24. Gaidius brevispinus? G. O. Sars. 

 (PI. II fig.s. 7 a — h; pi. Ill figs. la — ^j; textfigs 24 a — i). 



1900? 

 1902? 

 1903? 



1903? 

 1904. 



Chiridius brevispinus n. sp. G. O. Sars, p. 68, pi. XIX. 

 Gaidius — G. O. Sars. Mrazek, p. 521. 



— — — G. O, Sars, pp. 162 — 



163; suppl. pi. VI. 



— — — Norman, p. 136. 



pp. 114—115; pi. IX 



figs 7-S. 



major u. sp. Wolfenden, 



1905? 



1905? 



1905. 



1906. 



1908. 



1908. 



Gaidius brevispinus G. O. Sars. G. O. Sars, p. 3. 



— affinis n. sp. G. O. Sars, p. 9. 



— brevispinus G. O. Sars. Farran, p. 33. 



— — — Pearson, p. 13. 



— — — V. Bremen, p. 35. 



— affinis — Farran, p. 32. 



