64 DR. H. J. HANSEN ON CRUSTACEANS [ Jan. 20, 
small specimens, but neither of them can be the type for Bate’s 
figure. Both specimens belong to Group II. in my earlier paper, 
but neither of them belongs to S. armatus, both having on the 
rostrum a well-developed sub-basal dorsal spine, which is absent 
in S. armatus Kr. and in Bate’s figure. I have been unable to 
refer the specimens, which measure about 8-5 and 11 mm., to any 
species known to me, and I thought it useless to describe and 
figure them.—One specimen from Port Jackson, Australia, the 
third locality in Bate’s report, measures at most 5°2 mm. without 
the rostrum, which has been broken at the middle, but possesses 
a very fine sub-basal spine. It is so small and so badly preserved 
that a reference to any species has been impossible. 
Finally I found a specimen from “Sidney,” determined by Bate 
as S. armatus, but not mentioned in his work. It is only as long 
as the preceding specimen and impossible to determine. 
The result is that I have perhaps not seen the specimen figured 
by Bate, which may belong to S. armatus Kr., and, according to 
the explanation of the plate, measured about 10 mm. in length, 
while his specimens of this length examined by me disagree with 
his figure by possessing a sub-basal upper spine on the rostrum. 
SERG. EDWARDSII Kroyer, Bate, p. 403, pl. Ixxiil. fig. 2. 
Bate enumerates three localities. The first 1s ‘“‘ North Atlantic, 
April 1873”: in the Museum I found a specimen labelled 
“14 April, 73, off Africa, surface,” which most probably is that 
indicated in the text, and it belongs to S. edwardsi Kr. The 
second locality is “‘ Pacific Ocean, surface, September 1875”: in 
the collection a specimen bearing the same inscription is 5. edwardsi 
Kr. From the third of Bate’s localities, Cape Verde Islands, I 
found no specimen, but a specimen without locality and signed 
“type” is an adult specimen of S. edwardsii Kr. (That Bate’s 
statement “ Greenland (Av dyer)” is wrong here, and in almost all 
other places, has already been pointed out both by Ortmann and 
myself.)— Furthermore, I found two small specimens of S. oculatas 
Kr., the Mastiyopus of S. edwardsii Kr., which had been deter- 
mined by Bate as S. edwardsti and labelled “ Aug. 23, 1873, 
lat. 2° 25’ N., long. 20° 1’ W., 100 fathoms,” but these specimens 
are not mentioned in Bate’s Report.. 
Bate’s description of the characters of S. edwards Kr. is in- 
complete; the reader is referred to my earlier paper. 
Sere. RINKU Kroyer, Bate, p. 404, pl. Ixxii. fig. 3. 
Bate mentions two localities: “‘ New Hebrides, August 23, 
1874,” and “South Pacific, 1875.” From the first of these 
localities the anterior half of a specimen was present. Further- 
more, I found two specimens labelled “ Oct. 19, 1875, S. Pacific, 
drawn,” and one and a half specimen labelled “Oct. 18, 1875, 
surface”: both these localities are in all probability identical with 
the second one in Bate’s Report. It may be very possible that all 
these specimens belong to S. rink Kr., which is the Mastigopus 
