454 Ecv. Canon A.M. Norman on British Schizopoda 



LXVII. — British Schizopoda of the Families Lopho^astridge 

 and Euphausiidge. By tlie Rev. Canon A. M. NoiiMAN, 

 M.A., D.C.L., F.R.S., &c. 



In Bell's ' History of British Stalk-eyed Crustacea ' a single 

 species of these families was described which had been found 

 by Couch in the stomach of a mackerel at Polperro. It Avas 

 named Thysanopoda Couchii, Bell, and is the Nyctiphanes 

 Couchii of the present paper. 



In 1861 I briefly described in the Brit. Assoc. Report, 

 from Shetland, Ctenomysis alata, Norman, which is the 

 Lophogaster typicus of M. Sars. 



In 1868 I recorded in the "Last Report of Shetland 

 Dredging " (Brit. Assoc. Report) Thysanopoda norvegicay 

 M. Sars, — Nyctiphanes norvegica of this paper. The younger 

 specimens there referred to subsequently proved to be refer- 

 able to Thysanoessa neglecta, Kroyer. 



In 1872 Mr. G. Sim recorded in the ' Scottish Naturalist,' 

 as found at Aberdeen, Rhoda Jardineana, Sim {•=Boreo- 

 jjhaiisia Raschii, M. Sars), Thysanoessa aberdonensis, Sim 

 {=■ Thysanoessa neglecta, Kroyer), and under a name Thysa- 

 noessa horealis, Norman (non G. O. Sars, 1882) the Xema- 

 toscelis megalops of the present paper. Mr. Sim wrote : — 

 "This species [Tl aberdonensis^ is found in considerable 

 abundance on our sandy beach in the months of ^larch 

 and April, along with T. horealis^ a species named by the 

 Rev. A. M. Norman, for the identification of whicli I am 

 much obliged to that gentleman. The principal difference 

 between T. horealis and T. aherdonensis is in the first pair 

 of feet, which in T. horealis are terminated with from 

 eighteen to twenty long sharp spines, all proceeding from the 

 extremity of the limb, while in T. aherdonensis eighteen 

 spines are arranged along the sides of the last segment of 

 that member, and two more placed on the wrist. The body 

 and rostrum also differ in the two species." Mr. Sim liere 

 greatly exaggerates the number of spines at the extremity of 

 the limb, which are (usually) eight ; but one of my mounted 

 specimens might well be mistaken to have sixteen, since the 

 animal being about to cast its skin, the whole of the new 

 spines are seen within the old ones, and would easily deceive 

 in such a mounted s])ecimcn if the observer was not prepared 

 for the deception. In consequence of this inaccuracy w ith 

 respect to the number of spines it appears to me that the 



