378 



described in the present work as W. minuta Glaus, but differs in some particu- 

 lars, especially as regards the structure of the anterior antennae, so that it 

 evidently ought to be regarded as specifically distinct. As to the genus Pseudo- 

 thctlestris of Brady, I am still of opinion, that it cannot be supported, since the 

 only character on which it is based, the biarticulate condition of the outer ramus 

 of the 1st pair of legs,, is also found in a species, W. assimilis G. 0. Sars, which 

 so closely resembles the type species, W. nobilis, Baird, as hardly to be distin- 

 guished without dissection. 



Occurrence. Several specimens of this form were taken, some years ago, 

 from tidal pools at Haugesund, west coast of Norway. Prof. Brady also found 

 this species in tidal pools, and it would thus seem to be a pronouncedly 

 littoral form. 



Distribution. British Isles (Brady). 



Page 154. 

 Amphiascus minutus (Glaus). 



Distribution. Polar Island north of Grinnell Land (2nd Fram Exp.). 



Page 156. 

 For Amphiascus imus (Brady) 



Eead: Am2)hiascus varians (Norm. & Scott). 



Stenhelia varians, Norman & Scott, Copepoda new to science from Devon and Cornwall. Ann. 

 Mag. Nat. Hisc, Ser. I Vol. XV, p. 284. 



Remarks. I find that the form decribed in the present account on page 

 156 as Amphiascus imus Brady is unquestionally identical with that recorded in 

 the year 1905 by Messrs. Normann and Scott under the name of Stenhelia varians 

 and subsequently more fully described and figured in their beautiful work Cru- 

 stacea of Devon and Cornwall". As these gentlemen also record the true 

 Stenhelia ima of Brady, these 2 forms must in reality be specifically distinct. 

 In describing the present species I have also pointed out some apparent differences, 

 especially in the structure of the last pair of legs. 



Page 166. 

 Amphiascus hispidus (Brady). 



Distribution. Polar Islands north of Grinnell Land (2nd Fram Exp.). 



