CRUSTACEA OF FEANZ-JOSEr LAND. Ill 



Genus Westwoodia, Dana, 1855. 



"W^ESTWOODIA NOBiLis (Baird). 



1845. Ai-pacticus nobilis, Baird (2), p. 155. 



This species was obtained in a gathering collected in West 

 Bay, Cape Mora, July 27th, 1897 ; a single specimen only was 

 observed. Westwoodia nobilis is found sparingl}^ in many places 

 around the British Islands, and appears to be otherwise widely 

 distributed. It is a distinct species, and when living very 

 prettily coloured. 



Genus Haepacticus, Milne-Edwards, 1838. 



Harpacticus chelieer {Muller). (PL 8. figs. 10-13.) 



1776. Cyclops cJielifer, O. F. Muller (55), p. 2413. 



This Harpacticus, which is moderately common in the British 

 seas, was of rare occurrence in the Franz- Josef Land collection ; 

 the only gathering ia which the species was observed was one 

 from AVest Bay, Cape Plora, collected in July 1897. 



It will be observed from the figures on Plate 8, that the Franz- 

 Josef Land specimens of Harpacticus clielifer differ somewhat 

 from those from Heligoland and the British seas ; the antennules 

 of these Arctic specimens (fig. 10) are 9-jointed, whereas in 

 Dr. Claus's description of the species they are stated to be 

 8-jointed (achtgliedrig), and this agrees with what I have observed 

 in Clyde specimens. The posterior foot-jaws (fig. 11) are 

 scarcely so angular on the inner aspect as they are found to be 

 in Clyde specimens. There does not appear to be much differ- 

 ence in the structure of the first pair of sviimming-feet (fig. 12). 

 In the fifth pair the secondary joints are proportionally smaller 

 than in Clyde specimens, and the inner produced part of the 

 l)asal joints is more broadly rounded. JS'otvpith standing these 

 differences, it seems better to regard this simply as a form of 

 Harpacticus chelifer. 



Harpacticus chelieer, var. arcticus. (PI. 8. figs. 14-17.) 

 An Harpacticus, of a more robust form than the last, was of 

 frequent occurrence in some of the gatherings. I was inclined 

 at first to regard this as belonging to Harpacticus gracilis, 

 Claus, which it in some respects resembles, but I now prefer to 

 look on it as a robust variety of Harpacticus chelifer. The 



