EUCOPEPODA FROM TANGANYIKA, 821 
Lernéocera cyprinacea Blainville, Journal de Physique, t. 95, 
1822, p. 377. 
Lernwocera cyprinacea Burmeister, Nova Acta Acad. Ces.- 
Leop. Bd. 17, 1835, p. 309. 
2. LernmocerA EsocINA * Burmeister. 
Lerneeocera cyprinacea v. Nordmann, Mikrograph. Beitr. 
Naturgesch. wirbellosen Thiere, Heft 2, Berlin, 1832, p. 123 
(non L. cyprinacea Linn.). 
Lernceocera esocina Burmeister, Nova Acta Acad. Czs.-Leop. 
Bd. 17, 1835, pp. 309 & 312. 
Lerncocera gasterostet Brihl, Mitt. K. K. zool. Inst. d. Uniy. 
Pest, 1860 (Wien), p. 1. 
Lerneocera gobina Claus, Wirzb. naturw. Zeitschr. Bd. i. 
IstOlle jos Mule 
Lerneocera esocina Claus, Beobachtungen wher Lerneocera, 
Peniculus und Lernea. Marburg, 1868, p. 1. 
3. LERNHOCERA CRUCIATA Lesueur. 
Lerneocera cruciata (? Lernecenicus) Lesneur, Journ. Acad. Nat. 
Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 11. 1824, p, 286. 
4, LERNZOCERA PHOXINACEA Kroyer. 
Lerneocera phoxinacea Kollar MS., Kroyer, Naturhistorisk 
Tidsskrift, ser. 3, vol. 11., Copenhagen, 1863-64, p. 399. 
5. LERNHOCERA LAGENULA Heller. 
Lerneocera lagenula Heller, Reise der Novara 
(Wien, 1865), p. 246. 
6. LERNHOCERA POMOTIDIS Krgyer. 
Lerncocera pomotidis Kroyer, Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, ser. 3, 
vol. 11., Copenhagen, 1863-64, p. 397. 
Crustaceen 
“I 
LERNXOCERA CATOSTOMI Krgyer. 
Lerneocera catostomi Kroyer, Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, ser. 5, 
vol. i1., Copenhagen, 1863-64, p. 395. 
1t is perhaps well to point out here that the classification of the 
parasitic Eucopepoda has hardly received the attention devoted 
to that of free-living forms. At the same time it is clear that 
a satisfactory basis on which to classify the former is unusually 
dificult to find, on aecount of the extraordinary degree of 
modification commonly undergone by the female on the adoption 
of a parasitic mode of life. It is possible, indeed probable, that 
* It has been suggested by some modern writers (cf. Bassett-Smith, op. cit. p. 480, 
and Brian, ‘Copepodi Parassiti dei Pesci d'Italia,’ Genova, 1906, p. 79) that the species 
esocina and cyprinacea should be united. ‘Their contention does not seem to rest 
on personal observations, but on their interpretation of the original descriptions. 
After an examination of the actual specimens, [ have no hesitation im confirming the 
view of the older authors, namely that the species are perfectly distinct. 
