CRUSTACEA MALACOSTRACA. II. jjj 



In the last-named work Sars has given a good representation of this species, viz. figures of a 

 female without marsupium from above and from the side, together with drawings of appendages. He 

 presented the Copenhagen Museum with two of his co-types, but they differ in some points and 

 especially in the antennulse from his figures and description. A comparison between my fig. i g, drawn 

 from one of his co-types, with his figures on PI. XVI shows, that the antennulse are much more slender 

 than figured by Sars and above all that the moderately slender terminal joint is slightly shorter than 

 the two preceding joints combined, while according to Sars that joint is much shorter than the sum 

 of the two preceding joints and very thick. Furthermore ray figures of second and sixth legs (figs, 

 ih and li) as compared with Sars' figures of second and seventh legs show that the thoracic legs 

 drawn bv him have the joints conspicuously shorter in proportion to thickness than in my Norwegian 

 specimens presented by him. As to the relative length of thorax and abdomen, Sars' figures agree well 

 with mv Norwegian specimens, but in these the uropods are more remote from the end of abdomen 

 (fig. I k) than according to his figures, in which the uropods reach beyond the end of abdomen which 

 is not the case in his co-types mentioned, while it exists in all the "Ingolf specimens. Sars stated 

 that he had taken S. cylindrata at several places "in depths ranging from 50 to 200 fathoms". 



Judging from these statements one might be tempted to suppose that Sars had mixed up two 

 different species. But though the "Ingolf material is small, it originates from three localities with 

 the depth from about 1200 to near 1700 fathoms, two specimens from the cold and two from the warm 

 area, and these specimens show various differences. Furthermore, the antennulae show features inter- 

 mediate between Sars' figures of S. cylindrata and his two co-types mentioned; the thoracic legs are 

 in two "Ingolf specimens about as drawn by Sars, in two other specimens still shorter and thicker. 

 For such reasons I am apt to think that all specimens seen by Sars or me are in reality variations 

 of the same species. But it ma\- be of some significance to add some further notes on the "Ingolf" 

 specimens from each locality. 



The female from Stat. 113 (fig. la), which measures 3.7 n>™ in length, is more slender than any 

 other of my specimens and than that figured by Sars, as it is even slightly more than nine times as 

 long as broad. But its antennulse (fig. ib) have the fourth joint shorter and thicker than in the 

 specimens from the other stations, though less thick than in Sars' drawing (fig. la'), while the chelae 

 are more robust and the thoracic legs (figs, ic and id) shorter and thicker than in the specimen 

 figured by Sars or in my specimens from other places. The chelse (fig. ib) are slightly more than 

 twice as long as broad; the abdomen is longer than in specimens from any other source, being as 

 long as the five posterior thoracic segments plus more than half of second segment combined, while 

 the sixth abdominal segment is only a little longer than the three preceding segments combined. 

 In Sars' figures and in his two co-types the abdomen is scarcely as long as the five posterior thoracic 

 segments combined, but its sixth segment is as long as the four preceding segments together. - The 

 subadult male from the same place - Stat. 113 - agrees in all respects with the female and its 

 antennulse are but slightly tliicker, but it has moderately developed pleopods, the rami of which are 

 somewhat long in proportion to the peduncle and the setse on their tenninal margin short (as 

 figured by Sars). 



The subadult male from the "Ingolf Stat. 24 (figs, i e and i f) agrees as to the relative length 



