13 



A. Della Valle: *Gammarini del Golfo di Napoli« (Fanna und Flora des Golfes von 

 Neapel, 20. Monographic, 1893, 4to). In the chapter »Parassiti dei G-ammarini« (p. 289—90) the 

 author informs us of some observations he has made, and suggests some hypotheses about 

 Sphceronella. The species on which Salensky found his Spceronella Leuckartii is said to be 

 Microdeutopus gryllotalpa , and the author has found it in the locality indicated by the 

 discoverer of the species. He further states that he has found the same Sphceronella on 

 Ampelisca diadema Costa, where it lives under the same conditions as Podascon Delia Valid 

 G. and B. And he proposes three hypotheses, viz. that Sphceronella changes colour according 

 to its residence, in order to look like the eggs of the two different species of hosts; that 

 it does not live at the expence of the host itself, but by consuming its progeny, and that 

 for some time after having left the egg, the young Sphceronella is entopar'asitic , not ecto- 

 parasitic, developing itself in the oviduct and consuming the eggs successively as they appear. 

 In support of this last conjecture he states that he has found on an Ampelisca a Sphceronella 

 with its multitude of ovisacs, which host at the same time »racchiudeva in uno dei suoi 

 ovidutti, verso l'estremo esterno, uno piccolissima Sphceronella, in cui nondimeno erano gia ben 

 visibili le uova quasi mature « (p. 290), but in spite of this rather peculiar observation, his 

 conjecture seems unduly hasardous, as an attentive perusal of Salensky's excellent treatise 

 with the description of the pupa stage, which follows the larval stage, would have shown 

 its absurdity. Besides, Giard and Bonnier have refuted all these hypotheses in a later 

 paper; they justly maintain that there is a physiological reason for this castration (» castration 

 parasitaire«) effected by the parasite on its host, and they consider the form found on Am- 

 pelisca as a different species from Sph. Leuckartii, in which no doubt they are right. So I 

 think I need not throw further light on these questions. — 



About Rhizorhina Ampelisca H. J. H. the author in his Bibliographia, p. 897, only 

 writes: »Questo nuovo Copepodo rassomiglia molto alia Sphceronella Leuckarti, Salensky. The 

 quality of this resemblance is treated in the following pages. 



A. Giard et J. Bonnier: »Sur deux types nouveaux de Choniostomatidce des cotes de 

 France: Sphceronella microcephala, G. et B. et Salenskia tuberosa, G. et B. (Comptes-rendus 

 de lAcad. d. 8c, 25 sept. 1893). The contents of this preliminary note appear in a later 

 essay, much enlarged and — in one point — altered. 



A. Giard et J. Bonnier: » Contributions a T etude des E,picarides (Bull. Scientif. de la 

 France et de la Belgique T. XXV, 1895 — the part headed: »Les Sphceronelh 'dee «,p. 462—85, 

 PI. XII — XIII). Tins part calls for a detailed comment. 



The authors describe and figure the female and eggs of Sphceronella microcephala 

 G. etB., a species found on four specimens of Ampelisca tenuicornis Lilljeborg from Croisic. 

 Doubtless the frame of the head is incorrect, for a list like the one represented in the 

 illustration (PI. XII, fig. 43) as going from the outermost posterior angle towards the median 

 line behind the base of the maxillae, does not exist. If there is a connection between the 

 frame and the sub-median skeleton -- which by the by they have not seen — but which is 



