Dr. R. Kossman on the Entoniscide. 89 
protuberances are brought to lie opposite to the insertion of the 
brood-leaves, and therefore dorsally, Giard, in his figure, even 
expressly indicates the side on which they are placed as dorsal 
by means of the letter D. In the text he says, ‘ At the 
dorsal part we observe two long median protuberances slightly 
curved from behind forwards.” In his first article (8, p. 2) 
he actually thinks that these excrescences “ recall morpholo- 
gically certain features of the zoéa-form.’’ In the second 
memoir he reverts to this, but remarks more cautiously :—“ I 
do not venture to pronounce in so-affirmative a manner upon 
their true morphological value.’”’ Independently of the bold- 
ness of even hinting a comparison in the order Isopoda (in 
which not the smallest trace of the zoéa has been ascertained) 
between a protuberance produced by enormous growths of the 
ovary only in the last stage of existence and a zoéal spine, 
—independently of this, I say, M. Giard himself, when he 
has ascertained that we have to do here, not with dorsal, but 
with ventral protuberances, will probably recognize the erro- 
neousness of this idea. : 
In the gure and description of H. cancrorum, we see 
nothing of these processes; but the animal, as is shown by 
the small size of the anterior brood-leaves, was not full-grown. 
In the two species investigated by me they were regularly 
present in the adult animals, and so far showed a specific diffe- 
rence that in L. Cavolindi the size of the two ventral protu- 
berances was always about equal, while in the Entcone of Por- 
tunus arcuatus the posterior of these two protuberances, as 
shown in our figure (Pl. IX. fig. 1), was very much longer 
and stronger. In the case of the Hntione of Portunus puber, 
which Giard has described as H. Moniezii, he does not call 
attention to this difference, but does notice a difference in 
the colour and size of the first appendage on the pleon. This 
double difference, again, has not occurred to me on the parasite 
of P. arcuatus ; and I therefore at first indicated the latter as 
a new species, 1. salvatoris. Probably, however, this cannot 
be maintained. That Giard attempts to judge of the fre- 
quency of his #. Monzezii, and even sets up a definite propor- 
tion (1:100) between the animals affected and those not 
affected by it (8, p. 8, for H. Cavoliniz, 1:30), is the less 
admissible, because, in another place (5, p. 698), he himself 
states that he had found only two specimens, and these, more- 
over, upon the same host. The truth here again is, that the 
animal occurs epidemically in particular localities, and is there 
common, but elsewhere not to be met with. 
Fritz Miller and Giard, I may take this occasion of re- 
marking, have made similar statistical statements with regard 
