CRUSTACEA MALACOSTRACA. 47 



39. Cheraphilus neglectus G. O. Sars. 



1882. Cheraphilus neglectus G. O. Sars, Overs. Vid. Selsk. Forh. Christiania f. 1882, Nr. 18, p. 45, Tab. I, Fig. 6. 



Occurrence. The "Ingolf" has not taken this species, but it has been several times found 

 of recent years at Iceland and the Faeroes. 



South coast of Iceland: West of Geirfugleskjser, Young-fish trawl, 100 m. wire out, "Thor" 1904; 

 great quantity, very small spec. 



South coast of Iceland: 63 27' N. L., 19 37' W. L,., 45 fm., "Thor" 1904; 8 spec. 



63 42' 17 34' 4837 fm., "Thor" 1903; 6 spec. 



63 42' i632' 2925 "Thor" 1903; i 



63 50' i63i' 31 fm., "Thor" 1904; i spec. 



Distribution. G. O. Sars writes that this species occurs on the south and west coasts of 

 Norway in 2 to 6 fm.; it has been taken later in the Moray Firth, 78 fm., and the Firth of Forth 

 (Th. Scott) and west of Ireland, 15 fm. (Walker). It has of course a much wider distribution. 



Remarks. Several of my specimens are adult females with eggs, but they are only 14 i6mm. 

 long, thus considerably smaller than the measurement given by Sars, 26 mm. I have compared my 

 specimens with a 19 mm. long, considerably plumper and egg-bearing female of Ch. neglectus kindly- 

 lent me by Prof. G. O. Sars, and thus made certain that the last-named and my specimens belonged 

 to the same species. Both his female and my specimens differ however from Sars' description in that 

 the carapace and abdomen are not smooth; the carapace has always a considerable number of very 

 small raised granules, the abdomen has in part some depressed 2 points, in part and chiefly laterally some 

 extremely small raised granules, but these are nevertheless much weaker than in Ch. nanus Kr. Both 

 the specimen received from Sars and mine differ from Ch. namis in that the end of the rostrum is 

 somewhat broadly rounded, whilst in Ch. nanus this is somewhat prolonged; further, in the latter 

 form the integuments are much more granulous with more developed posterior median spine and more 

 distinct rudiments of sublateral keels on the carapace. On the other hand, the other characters given 

 by Sars do not seem reliable: the antennular peduncles are scarcely shorter in Ch. namis than in Ch. 

 neglectus, and I have not been able to find keels on the 6 th abdominal segment in Danish specimens 

 of Ch. nanus. There is also no dark cross-band on the 4 lh abdominal segment in my specimens of 

 Ch. neglectus. - - I am not at all certain that Ch. neglectus Sars is a species distinct from Ch. nanus 

 Kr.; it seems to me not altogether improbable that investigation of a larger material from different 

 localities will show, that Ch. neglect^^s is only a smoother variety. But I accept it here as a species 

 nevertheless, as my material of Ch. nanus is too small to settle the question. 1 



40. Sclerocrangon boreas Phipps. 



1774. Cancer Boreas Phipps, Voy. towards the North Pole, p. 190, Tab. XII, fig. i. 

 ! 1842. Kr0yer, Naturh. Tidsskr., B. IV, p. 218, Tab. IX, Fig. 1 14. 



1 A long time after this text was written Appellof published his important paper: Die Dekapoden Crustaceen, 1906. 

 On pag. 1 30 he is inclined to think, that Ch. negltctus G. O. S. must be cancelled, and he refers it with a query as a synonym 

 to Ch. bispinosits Hailst., while Ch. namis Kr. is considered a synonym to the last-named form. 



