153 



rule/art* G. 0. Sars), ought perhaps more properly to be considered as merely a 

 variety of that species, is quite unintelligible to me. I consider, on the contrary, 

 that the present form is so very different, both as regards its general appearance 

 and structural details, that it cannot even be placed in the same genus. 



Occurrence. This is one of our commonest Harpacticoida, occurring rather 

 abundantly along the whole south and west coasts of Norway, from the Christiania 

 Fjord at least to the Trondhjern Fjord. It is not, however, a strictly littoral form, 

 but is only found in moderate depths among alga?. 



Distribution. British Isles (Brady), coast of Bohuslan (coll. Cleve), Me- 

 diterranean at Nice (Glaus). 



96. Amphiascus nasutus (Boeck). 



(PI. XCV). 

 Dactylopus nasutus, Boeck, M. S. 



Syn : Dactylopus Stromi, var. arctica, Scott. 



Specific Characters. Female. Body resembling somewhat in its general 

 appearance that of A. similis, though comparatively more strongly built and less 

 pronouncedly cylindrical in form. Cephalic segment comparatively larger and 

 broader. Rostrum likewise broader and less acute at the tip, which is abruptly 

 curved downwards. Urosome slightly tapering distally, with all the segments 

 coarsely spinulose at the hind edge ventrally and laterally, last segment shorter 

 than the preceding one. Caudal rami scarcely instricted at the base, quadran- 

 gular in form, notch of the outer edge occurring close to the tip. Anterior an- 

 tennae still shorter and stouter than in A. similis, but composed of 9 well-defined 

 articulations, of which the first 2 are much larger than the others. Posterior 

 antenna? more strongly built, but otherwise of the very same structure as in the 

 above-mentioned species. 1st pair of legs likewise rather similar, but less slender 

 in form, differing moreover in having the terminal joint of the outer ramus more 

 expanded and armed with 4 strong claw-like spines in addition to the seta of the 

 inner corner. Last pair of legs resembling in shape those of A. similis, though 

 1 uiving the distal joint comparatively broader, and the outermost seta of the inner 

 expansion of the proximal joint more fully developed. Ovisacs comparatively 

 larger, extending considerably beyond the middle of the urosome. 



Male agreeing with that of A. similis in .most of the anatomical details, 

 but differing very conspicuously in the structure of the inner ramus of 2nd pair 

 of legs. The distal joint of this ramus is considerably dilated at the base, and 



