of the North-east Coast of England. 13 



margins, bearing at the apex of each joint, on the external 

 margin, a long slender spine ; terminal spines long and slen- 

 der ; the middle joint has also a long apical seta at the inner 

 margin : inner branch two-jointed, the first joint very small, 

 the second long, almost filiform, and dividing at the extremity 

 into one short and two very long lash-like branches. Fifth 

 foot in i]\Q, female foliaceous, the outer branch rather the longer, 

 bearing one long seta at the apex and tln*ee shorter ones on 

 the outer margin ; inner branch with two long apical setge : in 

 the male the two branches are of nearly equal length, very 

 narrow, simple, one branch bearing one, the other two long 

 setffi at the apex. The caudal segments short, but longer in 

 the male than in the female ; setae one on each segment, 

 scarcely longer than the segment itself. Length -^ of an 

 inch. 



Hah. Off Seaham Harbour, in a depth of from twenty to thirty 

 fathoms, on a soft muddy bottom. Two specimens only taken. 

 On account of the peculiar structure of tlie swimming-feet, 

 which were identical in both examples, I think I am justified 

 in referring these to the male and female of the same species. 

 The genus approaches Lilljehorgia of Glaus ; but the characters 

 given by that author, ''^ Pedum sequentium (2, 3, 4) rami in- 

 terni rudimentarii^ rami externi triarticulati^ uncinati^'' do 

 not apply here. 



Genus Haepacticus, M.-Edwards. 

 1. Harpacticus chelifer (0. F. Miiller). 



Cyclops chelifer, Miiller, Eutomostraca (1798). 



Harpacticus chelifer, Claus, Die frei-lebend. Copep. (18G3) ; Boeck, Over- 

 sigt Norges Copep. (1864). 



(Not H. chelifer of Lilljeborg.) 



Not uncommon amongst weeds between tide-marks, Roker, 

 Whitley, &c. In the open sea, off Seaton Carew. 



2. Harpacticus gracilis^ Claus. 



H. gracilis, Claus, Die frei-lebend. Copep. (1863). 

 H. elmigatns, Boeck, Oversigt Norges Copep. (1864). 



This occurs in the same situations, though not so frequently 

 as the foregoing species. M. Boeck doubts the identity of his 

 H. elongatus with Claus's gracilis^ on account of a difference 

 in the lengths of the antennal joints. This character, however, 

 seems to me to be often subject to considerable variation : and 

 I should not, without some divergence in other respects, be 

 disposed to separate the two forms. Indeed both approach so 

 closely to H. chelifer that it seems questionable whether they 

 might not be more fitly regarded as varieties of that species. 



