7.">4 t\(;k sKOfisnionr, 



1,1."> l,r)3. J 1,1.")— l,4."i iiiiu. 'riific is, in atlditiini. the i'act tlial tliis d('sci'i|it inn nf 



(;. \\ . .Mi'Ll.liK's is too incoiiipli'to to permit of a quito tH'itaiii itU-ntilii ation of the species and 

 alsd tliat there are a nuinher of difierences between tliis description and tlie specimens investip- 

 atetl by me. This is shown by a comparison between (f. \\ . MOlleu's pi. XXXil, ii^'. it, the 

 slioU of the female seen from the side, and my fiR.6. 



Fur tlu\se reasons I also thought it best imt tn imliulc in tins list A'. Chierchiae, (J. W. 

 MCU-KH. liiOS. p. 80. No information at all is given in ti\c latter work as tn llir lengths and types 

 of the specimens that were caught. 



The identification of Parocnnchoecia nhlotiga, V. T. ("LKVi;, 1900, as determined by J, (!. 

 AM'KUSsON, is based on a re-examination of the original specimens. (J. G. ANJ>i'>l{.s,suN does 

 not seem to have been quite certain about the correctness of this identification of his, as he had 

 added a query on the label; this was not included, however, by P. T. Cl.KVE.) (Inly two males 

 were found in the two samples. Of these the specimen from lat. 33" 17' N., long. 74" 2' W. 

 had a shell 1,17 mm. long, the specimen from lat. 42" 9' N., long. 42" 15' W. was 1,23 mm. long. 

 The latter specimen was characterized by the fact that the two valves were furnished postero- 

 dorsally with a moderately long spine; cf. fig. 3. Otherwise they agreed with the other 

 specimens of this species investigated by me. 



I'lider these circumstances it did not seem convenient to nie to include E. Chierchiae, 

 ]\ T. Cleve, 1904. p. 370 in the list of synonyms given above; this form has no description 

 or verificator}' figures. 



The inclusion of E. Chierchiae. G. S. BRADY, 1902 a as a synonym of the form described 

 above is due not to any far-reaching resemblance between G. S. Bhai>y's description and figures 

 and the specimens investigated by me, but to the fact that the description worked out by me 

 above is based on the same material as formed the basis of this writer's description. (I cannot 

 understand how V. VA\ra was able to identify this species of G. S. Brady's with E. Chierchiae, 

 (t. W. Mt'LLER, 1890 a without a re-examination of the original material.) The following 

 differences are noteworthy: Length of the shell in the female = 0,85 mm. The first antenna 

 of the male has a very long bristle (about as long as the whole antenna) dorso-distally on the 

 second joint; the female first antenna also has a bristle dorsally, but this is much shorter than 

 that of the male. (Does this , .bristle" correspond to the rod-shaped organ?) The end joint of 

 the endopodite of the second antenna has only two bristles in the female. The mandible has 

 a longitudinal row of hairs on the first and second endojjodite joints (= the exopodite bristle?). 

 The furca has only five claws. (This is a good ilhistration of the iincertaintv in this writei's 

 method of description!) 



V. \'A\'RA's form E. Chierchiae, 1906, p. 29, has not been included as a synonym, first 

 because the description given by this writer is too uncertain to permit of certain species identi- 

 fication, and secondly because there are a number of differences between this description and 

 the specimens examined by me. 



P. T. Cleve, in his work of 1905, p. 131, synonymizes Haloct/pris aculeata, Th. ScO'J'T, 

 1894, with Euconchoecia Chierchiae; no rea.sons are given for this. This synonymization was 

 accepted by Tif. Scott himself in two later works, 1909, p. 129 and 1912 a, p. 588; this author 



