22 DE. H. J. HANSEK ON BATHYNOMUS GIGAHTETJS. 



the head is quite dry, and the peduncle is bent backwards and 

 somewhat inwards, it is lifted out of a depression at the base of 

 the antennae. 



MaxillulcB (tirst pair of maxillae, auct.). — Bouvier writes (p. 148) : 

 " Elles ressemblent beaucoup aux machoires des Cirolanes 

 qu'a figurees M. Hansen, mais presentent trois articles basilaires 

 (1, 2, 3), dont deux s'articulent avec la petite lacinie {I, i) ; il 

 est probable que ces deux articles correspondent a celui que 

 M. Hansen designe avec no. 1." His fig. 6 on pi. 5 represents 

 the basal portion of the appendage and is certainly correct, but 

 his interpretation of the parts is incorrect. The joint considered 

 by Bouvier to be the second is in reality the first one : it is pro- 

 portionately long and is articulated with the skeleton of the head ; 

 an examination of a Cirolana or, still better, of a large specimen 

 of Chiridothea will easily prove this fact. The part regarded 

 by Bouvier as the first joint is the basal section of tlie lacinia 

 proceeding from the anterior and lower side of the elongate first 

 joint, and it is, besides, distant from the skeleton of the head. 

 The result is that the first joint of Bouvier must be put aside, 

 and we have then the three joints described by me in the paper 

 on the Cirolanidse (1890), in 'Dijmphna-Togtet ' (three figures 

 on pi. 20), and elsewhere. That my view respecting the three 

 joints is correct is easily proved by a careful examination of the 

 constituting elements in the same appendage of a large Apseudes 

 or an Anonyx, in which genera a two-jointed " palp " originates 

 from the outer side of the third joint ; it is still better proved 

 by the study of the maxillulse in certain larval stages of Euphausia, 

 in which not only a palpus but also an exopod (which again 

 disappears during the development) projects from the outer 

 margin of the third joint. 



Maxillce (second pair of maxillae, auct.). — Bouvier has a figure 

 which is very similar to mine of certain species of Cirolana, but 

 as to the interpretation of the chitinous elements he diff'ers 

 largely. It was impossible to prove the correctness of my view 

 in the paper on the Cirolanidse «fec. without producing a minute 

 description of the parts in question, and besides adding a descrip- 

 tion with figure of the maxilla of a Mysis. I think it to be out 

 of place here, and, besides, I hope in the near future to work 

 •out a paper on the appendages in Crustacea, lower Insects, &c. 

 I will only mention that in Mysis an exopod proceeds from the 

 joint considered by me to be the third, but by Bouvier counted 



