Canon A. M. Norman on British Isopoda. 433 



3. ^ga tridenSf Lcacli. 



18-0. JFr/a tridenn, Liitken, /. c. p. 2 (separate copy). 



1867. JEf/a tridcm, Hate k West wood, /. c. vol. ii. p. 281. 



1879. yl'j/u tridens, Schiiidte & Meinert, I. c. p. 310, pi. vii. fi^'S. 1, 2. 



1895. ^ja tridens, G. O. Sars, /. c. p. 60, pi, xxv. lig. 1. 



Off Isle of Cumbrae, Firth of Ciy.lo {D. Robertson, in 

 Mus. Nor.). 



4. ^ija Sfroiniij Liitken. 



1834. Jlif/a mnnnphthabna, var., Johnston, Loudon's Mag. Nat. Hist. 



vol. vi'i. p. 233. iijr. 43 c. 

 1843. JE(jn bicarinuta, II. Ratbke (nee Leach), " Beitrage zur Fauna 



Norwogens," Acta Acad. Cyes. Leop.-C.ar. Nat. Cur. vol. xx. p. 25, 



pi. vi. tigs. 1-18. 

 1858. ^2>7rt Stroinii, Liitken, I. c. p. 4, pi. i. figs. 6-8. 

 1879. .'E</a Strdntii, Schiiidte & Meinert, I.e. p. .349, pi. vii. figs. 10-15. 

 1897. JEja Stromii, G. 0. Sars, I. c. p. 60, pi. xxv. iig. 2. 



On fish taken off Whitburn, C). Durham (/I. Hancock, \\\ 

 Mu.s. Nor.) ; a specimen taken hit. G0° 39' N., long-. 3° 9' W., 

 /. e. west of the Shethmd Isles, in 203 fathoms (' Porcupine/ 

 1869, Stat. 74); a co-type specimen from Faroe Islands 

 given me by Dr. Liitken is also in my collection. 



This is the British species which has been confusei with 

 the next, under which see observations. 



5. ^ija rosacea, Risso. 



1816. ^l£fia rosacea, Risso, Hist. Crust. Nice, p. HO, pi. iii. fig. 9. 

 1818. A'^rja hicarinata, Leach, Diction. Sci. Nat. vol. xii. p. 349. 

 1836-49. ^ja hicarinata, II. Milne-Edwards, Cuv. Reg. Anini. 



pi. Ixvii. fig. 2. 

 1867. yEf/'i hicarinata, B:ite & Westwood, I. c. vol. ii. p. 278. 

 1879 -^(ja rosacea, Schicidte & Meinert, /. c. p. 354, pi. x. figs. 5-7. 



The most marked distinction between this species and the 

 last consists in the size and position of the eyes, which in 

 JE. Stromii are very large and touch or all but meet each 

 other, while in ^. rosacea they are very small for the genus 

 and are widely separated. yEja rosacea is a well-known 

 ]\Jediterranean species, and further evidence is, I think, 

 required before it can be safely acknowledged as a member 

 of our fauna. The type specimen of Leach, which is 

 figured by Bate and Westwood, was from an unknown 

 locality. Those authors undoubtedly confused two species, 

 since my Durham specimen, which was sent to them for their 

 use, was referred to zEga hicarinata, while it is undoubtedly 

 y^. Stromii. This throws doubt upon the other localities 

 which they give, though, of course, they may refer to Leach's 



