211 



slightly divergent, being somewhat contracted in the middle, but a little 

 widening towards the end; the outer corner of which is produced to a small 

 dentiform projection; seta of outer edge attached considerably in front of the 

 middle; apical setae rather slender, the 2 middle ones coarsely spinulose at the 

 edges for some part of their length; seta of inner corner much longer than 

 that of the outer. Anterior antennae comparatively short, not nearly attaining 

 the length of the cephalic segment and, as in C. gracilis, composed of only 

 10 joints, the 6th being much the largest and about equalling in length the 

 outer 4 joints combined. Posterior antennae, oral parts and natatory legs 

 resembling in structure those parts in C. gracilis. Last pair of legs also rather 

 similar, though comparatively of somewhat smaller size. Ovisacs rather small 

 and closely appressed to the sides of the tail. 



Colour whitish grey. 



Length of adult female not exceeding 0.42 mm. 



Remarks. The above-described form is closely allied to C. gracilis 

 Glaus, and indeed at first I was inclined to regard it as merely a small variety 

 of that species. Having however subsequently met with this form in many 

 different localities and always found its characters pretty constant, I am now 

 of opinion that it should be kept apart as a distinct species. 



Occurrence. I first observed this form at Skutesnaes SW coast of 

 Norway, where it occurred not unfrequently together with C. gracilis, from 

 which it at once distinguished itself by its much smaller size. The same form 

 has subsequently occurred to me in the following localities of the southern 

 coast: Farsund, Lillesand, Grimstad and Riser. 



Page 32. For Cyclop strenuus, Fisher, read: 

 Cyclops pictus, Koch. 



Deutschlands Crustaceen, Myriapoden und Arachniden. Heft. 21, PI. 1. 



Remarks. As it appears to me beyond doubt, that Koch's species is 

 the same as that subsequently described by Fischer as C. strenuus, I think 

 that, according to the rules of priority, the name proposed by the first named 

 author must be retained for the present species. 



