Miscellaneous. g3 



Coloration brown, without traces of spots. The total length 

 of the largest examined specimen 170 milliras. 



I possess two specimens from the western and northern 

 coasts of Norway, both brought up in a dredge by Prof. (}. 

 O. Sars searching for sea animals. The larger specimen (total 

 length 170 millims.) was taken at Floro, on the Bergen coast, 

 in 1873 ; the other is a younger individual (total length 

 100 millims.), and taken from a depth of 30 fathoms at Bodo, 

 north of the Arctic Circle (lat. G7° 15' X.), in 1874. 



Christiaiiia, Xovember 10, 1874. 



MISCELLANEOUS. 



On the Emhryogeny of the Rhizocephala. 



To the Editors of the Annals and Magazine of Natural History. 



Ge.vtleme.v, — Tn your Journal for November 1874, p. 383, M. 

 Giard imputes an error to me of which I am not guQty. He 

 says: — "An error similar to that of M. Gerbe has been made by 

 Professor Semper, who describes as furnishing a larva of a very 

 peculiar form a Peltogaster of the Philippine Islands, of which he 

 has evidently observed the embryos only after the first moults, when 

 they already afi"ected the Cypridine form." 



I trust you will be so kind as to allow me to offer some remarks 

 on this matter. 



Having observed the Cypridine larva of a Peltogaster in the 

 Pelews already in 1861, and having sent my few remarks on them 

 to the editor of the ' Zeitschr. fiir wiss. Zool.' in 1862, which ap- 

 peared in 1863, I was evidently unable to know that F. MiiUer 

 would describe in the year 1863 (Arch. f. Naturgesch. xxix. Febr.) 

 the second larva of the Suctoria : at that period only the first of 

 them, the NaxipUus-iorm, was known. I was thoroughly justified, 

 therefore, in designating a larva diverging from the ouly known ones 

 as heing peculiar ; I might then have called it rightly very peculiar, 

 although 1 have not done so. It was peculiar not only for its un- 

 known form, but also for its two eyes, whilst the larvae of Rhizo- 

 cephala till then known had only a single one. 



M. Giard imputes to me an eiTor on the ground of his belief that 

 all Rhizocephala must have a Nauplius-\B.rY?L as the first larval stage. 

 But this is only a dogma. M. Giard has not examined the species 

 discovered by me in the Pacific ; he has therefore no formal right 

 to impute to me a mistake in my observations. In the totally closed 

 sac of the mother only such Cypridine larvae were found, no Xouplius- 

 larvse or empty skins which I might have ascribed to such. Why, 

 then, should not here, as is the case with so many other crustaceans, 



6* 



