88 COPEPODA 



Distribution. This species was taken twice by S/S Michael Sars between Jan Mayen and Fin- 

 markeu at a depth of from 500 to 1000 metres. According to Koefoed and Damas the species is 

 found "a) dans la mer du Gronland: de 60 jusqn' a 1800 metres ait moins, b) dans la mer de Norvege: 

 jamais observe a moins de 400 metres" (p. 409). By the Due d'Orleans it was gathered at 10 stations 

 as far east as 24o L,. E. at 79 L,. N., and as far west as 15 L,. W. at 78 L,. N. near the east coast of 

 Greenland. The expedition has at the most northern station I2 / 7 1905 taken adult males as well as 

 females and young ones. According to Wolf en den his Faeroella multis errata "is not uncommon in 

 the deep water of the Fseroe channel, and has been traced by the writer as far south as Valentia in 

 Ireland" (p. 117). This species is, according to Far ran, "occurring not uncommonly from 400 to 1000 

 fathoms" off the west coast of Ireland. 



Remarks. I do not doubt that the specimens which I have examined ought to be referred 

 to Bars' species, in spite of the smaller size, the shorter rostral spines, the lateral spines which scarcely 

 reach the middle of the genital somite, and the comparatively longer abdomen; from Wolfe n den's 

 very imperfect description it differs by the well marked segmentation between the head and first 

 thoracic tergite, by imperfect segmentation of Ri pes II, and by more coarsely spinulated terminal spines 

 of the legs. 



Though Sars (cf. Far ran p. 20) has accepted Wolfendens species as distinct from his own, 

 and in spite of the different distribution, I am fairly convinced that they belong to the same species; 

 the southern variety has sometimes comparatively few dentations in the St pes II (Farran has found 

 32 only). Further examination and comparison of the different forms are needed before the question 

 can be solved. It is to be regretted that neither Wolfenden nor Damas & Koefoed, who have 

 examined the males as well, have given any description of them. 



If Scott's figure of the antennulae of his A. rostrata Sars is correct, the Sp. of the segment 

 23 does not reach the end of the segment 24, and a new species ought to be established. 



Wolfeuden has later on established 2 new species Faeroella minor and antarctica (1911 p. 214); 

 it is remarkable that this author does not accept Sars' name, which without doubt has the priority. 

 That the species are cogeneric does not seem to be doubtful ; whether the genus is quite natural is very 

 doubtful. To solve this rather vexed question I have not sufficient material of the different genera. 



22. Udinopsis armatus Vanhoffen. 



1895. Bradyanus armatus u. sp. Vanhoffen, p. 322. 



1897. Vanh. Vanhoffen, p. 280, fig. 17. 



1902. pars. Bradyirlius armatus Vanh. Mrazek, p. 521. 



1903. Udinopsis similis n. sp. G. O. Sars, p. 34, pi. XXI. 



1907. Udinopsis armatus Vanh. Vanhoffen, pp. 517519, taf. 21 



fig. 24. 



1908. Bradyidius similis G. O. Sars. v. Bremen, p. 32, fig. 32. 

 1913. Udinopsis armatus Vanh. Stephensen, p. 317. 



This species, which has not been secured by any of the expeditions, has been mentioned from 

 "Lille Karajak Fjord" on the west coast of Greenland, and Sars has found it in the inner part of the 

 Stavanger Fjord, where "it only occurred close to the ground", "the depth ranging from 50 to 100 

 fathoms". 



This species is not identical with Bradyidius armatus Giesbr. of Scott, Giesbrech t-Schmeil 

 and Wolfeuden. Stephensen has wrongly given Bradyidius armatus v. Bremen as partly synony- 

 mous with it. 



