26 CANON NORMAN THE CELTIC PROVINCE : 



considerable numbers some time ago." Among these wex'e 

 Ehoda Baschii, M. Sars, Thysanoessa neglecta, Kroyer, 

 Nematoscelis horealis, Norman, and Nyctiphanes norvegica, 

 M. Sars. Professor M'Intosli observed on 22nd April, 1886, 

 Nyctiphanes norvegica and Thysanoessa longicaudata to have 

 been thrown up in enormous quantities in St. Andrew's Bay. 

 So dense was their mass that he states : " the tidal wave was 

 crowded with them, and miles of sand were strewed with their 

 bodies, which the receding wavelets left in streaks and curves." * 

 Of these two Crustacea, the Thysanoessa was an Arctic species 

 not previously known in our fauna. 



In 1892 Mr. Thomas H. Nelson, writing from Redcar, North 

 Yorkshire, records another similar migration. He writes : f 

 " February 10th, 11th, and 12th. Attracted by the number of 

 kittiwakes (Bissa tridactyla) to be seen about a mile out to sea, 

 I procured a boat and went off to ascertain the cause of this 

 vast assemblage of gulls. Both east and west, as far as the 

 eye could reach, their graceful white forms were visible,, many 

 busily engaged dipping into the water, and others flying over- 

 head and then darting down to pick up some object from the 

 surface. I shot two or three examples and found that their 

 mouths were full of small crustaceans, with which the sea 

 was literally alive ; heaps of these were afterwards washed 

 ashore by sea-winds, and afforded a feast for starlings and 

 other frequenters of the tidal line." Mr. Nelson sent some 

 of these to me for determination. There were two of the 

 Schizopoda already mentioned, Thysanoessa longicaudata, Kroyer, 

 and Nematoscelis horealis, Norman, but the mass consisted of 

 Euthemisto compressa, GI-oes.+ Again, in 1894, Mr. Nelson wrote 

 and sent examples of Euthemisto compressa, which in that 

 year had been thrown up in vast quantities. While writing 

 this paper I enquired of Mr. Nelson if he had observed any 

 occurrence of the same kind since 1894. My letter reached 

 him on April 10th, and curiously in reply he said that two 

 days before large quantities of Crustacea had been found upon 

 the beach. He adds, " before it was too dark to-night I went 



* ' Auu. Mag. Nat. Hist.,' ser. 5, vol. xix, 1887, p. 140. 



t 'The Naturalist,' May, 1892, pp. 144 aud 175. 



X The Amphipod referred to is named by Bate aad "NVestwood in their work 

 Hyptria ohhiua, Kroyer, but in 1868 I pointed out that it was not Ivrijyer's 

 species, and named it Hijperia (/raci/ipes. Tliat name has been accepted by 

 carcinologists, but I am now of opinion that it is a small southern form ot 

 Euthemislo cuiiipressa, Goes, which is without the dorsal spiuatiou characteristic 

 of Arctic examples. It might perhaps be most correctly named Eidhemisto 

 compressa, Goes, var. gracilipes, Norman. 



