433 Canon A. M. Norman on British Isopoda. 



3. j^ga tridens, Leach. 



1860, ^ga tridens, Liitken, I. c. p. 2 (separate copy). 



1867. jEga tridens, Bate & Westwood, /. c. vol. ii. p. 281. 



1879. ^ga tridens, Schiodte & Meinert, I. c. p. 340, pi. vii. figs. 1, 2. 



1895, jEga tridens, G. O. Sars, I. c. p. 60, pi. xxv. tig. 1. 



Off Isle of Cumbrae, Firth of Clyde (Z). Robertson, in 

 Mus. Nor.). 



4. ^ga Stromii, Liitken. 



1834. JEga monophthabna, var., Johnston, Loudon's Mag. Nat. Hist. 



vol. vii. p. 233, fig. 43 c. 

 1843. ^gn bicarinata, H. Ratbke (nee Leach), " Beitrage zur Fauna 



Norwegens," Acta Acad, Cses. Leop.-Oar. Nat. Cur, vol. xx, p. 25, 



pi. vi. figs. 1-18, 

 1858. jEga Stromii, Liitken, I. c. p. 4, pi. i. figs. 6-8. 

 1879. ^ga Stromii, Schiodte & Meinert, I. c. p. 349, pi. vii, figs. 10-15. 

 1897, ^ga Stromii, G, 0. Sars, I. c. p. 60, pi, xxv. fig, 2, 



On fish taken off Whitburn, Co, Durham (A. Hancock, in 

 Mus. Nor.) ; a specimen taken lat, 60° 39' N., long-, 3° 9' W., 

 «. e. west of the Shetland 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 confused with 

 the next, under which see observations. 



5. ^ga rosacea, Risso. 



1810. ^ga rosacea, Risso, Hist. Crust. Nice, p. 140, pi. iii. fig. 9. 

 1818. A<lga hicarinata, Leach, Diction. Sci. Nat. vol. xii, p. 349, 

 1836-49. jEga bicarinata, H, MiLne-Edwards, Cuv, Reg. Anim. 



pi. Ixvii. fig. 2. 

 1867. JEga bicarinata. Bate & Westwood, I. c. vol, ii, p. 278, 

 1879, jEga rosacea, Schiodte & 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. jEga rosacea is a well-known 

 Mediterranean 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 jEga hicarinata, while it is undoubtedly 

 j^. Stromii. This throws doubt upon the otlier localities 

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



