14 



never wanting in any Sphceronelia, there must also be a list behind the maxillipeds. How- 

 ever, the whole frame seems to me most problematical, nor have I found it in specimens 

 which, as far as I can judge, belong to the same species. I should not have dared to 

 suppose so great a fault in this illustration, if I had not seen their type specimen of the 

 male of Aspidoecia. which enabled me to ascertain their astonishing mistakes in the repre- 

 sentation of several organs, especially in the maxillae and the maxillipeds (comp. above p. 7 — 8). 

 Moreover, they have decidedly overlooked the maxillulse, which I have never found wanting 

 in any female of this family. About the maxillae (»les maxillipedes internes*) they say that 

 they are »form6s de quatre articles« (p. 464), but this is wrong, for these limbs in all 

 females, males and larvae of this family contain at most three joints, and the two last joints 

 are even frequently so completely fused that we only find two distinct joints, as shown in 

 my illustration (pi. VIII, fig. 2d) of the head of this species. Neither do I doubt that their 

 representation of the maxillipeds with their strange flexion and the second joint thick and 

 quite as long as the first, is entirely wrong. Their description and figure of the genital 

 region (p. 465, pi. XII, fig. 44) is not successful either. By the words of the text: »un arc 

 de cercle chitineux (c) qui, posterieurement, se termine par deux branches ... « and by the 

 illustration, it is seen that they have turned the whole part upside down, as in reality both 

 blanches turn forward towards the head of the animal, seen from the ventral side (comp. 

 my fig. 2a on pi. VIII). The chitinous arch with its branches is prettj' correct. Their 

 representation of the genital apertures and their muscles is perfectly correct, while the 

 apertures marked a and designed as being »les ouvertures d'une paire de grosses glandes 

 ... les glandes coll6teriques« — are the orifices of the receptacula seminis (comp. my de- 

 scription below and my figures of several other species of the genus). In fig. 2f on pi. VIII, 

 as in several other instances, I have not represented these orifices, but after a renewed 

 examination of the same species, I can state that the orifices, leading to the receptacula seminis 

 in my Sph. microcephala G. and B., are found precisely in this place, and from these openings 

 each of the middle-sized receptacula -- forming au oblong sac — curves gently backward 

 and somewhat inward towards, the centre. I am at a loss to understand anything about 

 these glands illustrated by the authors. They also represent a pair of very large »receptaeula 

 seminis« as opening into the genital apertures; though unable to explain what they are, I 

 am positive that they are not what the authors suppose them to be. Finally, what they 

 describe as follows : » An centre meme de l'aire genitale il existe un espace cordiforme elair 

 (ec) , avec trois petites vesicules granuleuses aux trois sommets, la superieure etant la plus 

 grande et la plus nette; toute cette partie est situ6e profondement, sous le tegument« is 

 certainly no organ or organs, but accidental formations produced by coagulation or the like. 

 The authors have taken their species on Ampelisca tenuicorn is Lilljeborgfroin Croisic 

 (south coast of Brittany), and their determination of the host has been confirmed by the 

 eminent Carcinologist , Prof. G. 0. Sars. The specimens described later on in this work, 

 which I have considered as belonging to the same species, were taken on Ampelisca typica 



