15 



Sp. Bate. During the interval between the appearance of the first publication and that of 

 the principal essay I corresponded with the authors about these questions, and as they quote 

 some of my written statements, I must make a few remarks. It is not only the fact that 

 Sph. microcephala had been found in Denmark on Ampelisca typica and in France on Amp. 

 tenuicomis, which I may have thought »tres curieux«, but in examining- a large quantity 

 of Danish material of Amp. tenuicomis, not only had I found no specimen of Sph. microcephala 

 whatever, but I had found several specimens of a very different species (Sph. longipes n. sp.), 

 so it struck me as »very curious « that Amp. tenuicomis from the Danish coast had a parasite 

 which it had not near the French coast, while in the latter locality it had a parasite belonging 

 to the same genus, and which was not found on the Danish Amp. tenuicomis, though this 

 very parasite lives in Denmark, but had passed on to Amp. typica. However, I will add 

 that future researches may prove both species of parasites to live on both species of hosts 

 in either locality. In this case we shall wonder no longer, but until further notice we 

 have reason to find the circumstance curious. 



Subsequently the authors enter upon a critique of Delia Valle's observations and 

 hypotheses. To the species found by Delia Valle on Amp. diadema Costa, they give the 

 name of Sph. diadema G. and B., which consequently is put down without description. 

 However, as I have briefly stated the principal points of Delia Valle's observations on a 

 former page, I may pass them over here; I will only add that I am not prepared to judge 

 of the value of the reflections set forth by G-iard and Bonnier about the colour of the eggs 

 dI' parasites - - though I can say for certain that Delia Valle's opinion is wrong. On 

 p. 462—63 the authors repeat the above criticised suggestion of a connection between Oho- 

 niostomatida? and Epicaridea: »Les Choniostomatides sont-ils des parasites des Epicarides 

 clout ils prendraient la place en les faisant perir, on les Epicarides facilitent ils seulement 

 l'entree des Choniostomatides en produisant sur les Malacostraca des d6formations et une 

 castration parasitaire plus ou moins complete? C'est cette derniere hypothese qui nous 

 parait actuellement la plus vraisemblable«. 



That Delia Valle had found a species of Splueronetta on two specimens of Ampelisca 

 diadema, and a species of the genus Podascon (an Epicarid) on two other specimens of the 

 same Amphipod indeed was the only fact of interest which had occurred since their previous 

 work in 18«9, but this fact only proves that a fourth species of Choniostomatidae has been 

 added to the three, of which it has been stated above that they live on species infested 

 with Epicaridea, and this is of the slightest importance compared with the statistics I give 

 on p. 11 — 12, and the conclusions drawn from these statistics and from my observations. 



We now arrive at the most unfortunate idea advanced by these authors, their 



grouping of Cltoniostomatidce TT. J. H. mid of Herpyllobiidce H. J. H. as sub-families (with 



I lie suffix line) of the family Sphmromllidce G. and B. In order to refute this combination 



- one of the. most inappropriate I have ever met with in Carcinology — and some hypotheses 



connected with it, I shall also have to mention the family Herpyllobiidae. 



