It scMiis to 111.- liilli.T |irolial>l.' that ('. Inimtli.s. (i.S. I'.l;\h^ and A. M. N"i;\l\\, IH'.Mi 

 is a sviionvm of tliis form; tlio siu'cinions doscrilicd and iviiKiducnl liy these writers wore 

 nrosumablv caujiht olT tlie west const of Norway. The (h'seriptmn and hunres are. imwever, 

 oxcoodin^lv iiieoiiiiih'te and uncertain; it Wdidd l>e .su|ieilhiiins tn eiitei \i|)iin a (h'taih'd criticism 

 of them; I sliall onlv |iiiint out here as an ilhi>t rat inn that (Mi t he en(hi|iiidil<' nl the h'niah' seennd 

 aiitonna the iMid joint is fiiriiisheil with six lonjj; bristh's, a immherthat is imt Imind in a 

 sinjilo s])oeies of this genus; two {i-hnslles are drawn instead oi one. 



I liave mvself verified the rorrectness of the determination ot ('.hamdis, ('. \\ . S. At i;i- 

 \ILL1LS. 1899, pp. (>•_' and (Ui; cf. \k 717 t>el(tw. 



('. borealis. II. 11. (ii: an. liMi'2 is imluded in the above list of .synonyms because the speci- 

 mens on which this statement is based were defined by (.'. O. .Saks, wlio distinguished between 

 C. horeaiis and C. moxima on tliat occasion. 



('. borealis, P.T.Cl.HVi:, iyu3 (- C.b., V. T. n.i;\H and (). l'i;TTi:i;ss()N, i<)(i;{) was oidy 

 included in this Hst after I had myself subjected the original material to a careful verificatory 

 e.xamination. 



It seems to me rather ])rol)a])le that ('.borealis, V. VAM!A, 1906 is also identical with this 

 species. OnW two specimens were caught l)y the I' 1 a n k t o n K .\ p e d i t i o n, a mature 

 male and a mature female, both at the .same station, in the Labrador eiUTent. A niunber of 

 differences can certainly be noted, e. g. the shape of the female shell, the glands along the posterior 

 margin of the shell (cf. j)l. Ill, fig. 57) and the armature of the d-bristle on the male first antenna. 

 We should also note this author's statement with regard to the sculpture of the shell: ,,Die 

 Stniktur der Schale ist ziemlich fein, aber deutlich. in rhombischen Feldern bestehend." This 

 statement seems to support the idea that in these two specimens the sculpture was more weakly 

 developed than in the specimens from the west coast of Scandinavia. ^Vhat seems in my opinion 

 specially to support the idea of identity with the form dealt with above is the information as to 

 the length of the shell; the male was 2,35 mm., the female 2,9 mm. long, i. e. in this character 

 they agreed very closely with the specimens from Lofoten. A re-examination of these specimens 

 is desirable. 



The folio wing statements about finds of this species from the west coast of Norway and from 

 Skager Rak and the North Sea are also presumably to be referred to this species. As, however, 

 they have no verificatory information and as it is not clear whether a distinction has been 

 drawn between C. borealis and C. maxima, it seemed to me best not to include them in my list of 

 synonyms. These finds are as follows: C. borealis, G. 0. Sars, 1869, p. 360, O. Nordgaahd, 

 1898, p. 17, 1905, p. 40, C. H. OSTENFELD, 1906, p. 96 (part.), C. H. OSTENFELD and C. Wesen- 

 BERG-LUND, 1909, p. 112 (part), C. APSTEIX, 1911, p. 167 (l)art.) and E. JORGENSEN, 1912, 

 pp. 14, 16. 



The name C. borealis G. 0. Sars is also mentioned in the iulhnving places in the literature: 

 G. (). Sars, 1886. p. 75, E. Vanhoffex, 1897, p. 285, cf. below, p. 717, C. W. S. Ai i;i\ ii.i-lts, 

 1898, p. 42, this author 1899, pp. 38, 58 {^ P. T. Cleve, 1900), cf. below 

 p. 717, G. \V. MULLER, 1901, p. 4. cf. below p. 717, G. H. Fowler, 1903, p. 121; Th. Scott, 

 1905, p. 228; E. KOEFOKD, 1907, pp. 1.50. 151. 156, 1.57. 160, 161. 163, 164. 165, 167, 170, 



