T came to results which differed very much from the figures and descriptions of the authors. 

 Though feeling convinced that I had studied animals belonging to their species, I wanted 

 to make quite sure of it and asked the Rev. Canon A. M. Norman to lend me the animals which 

 had served as types to the French authors, and I received a male aud a female. The male 

 was kept in a preparation made by Mssrs. Giard and Bonnier, but it was considerably 

 flattened in an oblique direction, these animals — as stated above — not being able to with- 

 stand the pressure of a glass-cover; its position was about the same as that shown on 

 pi. XI in their paper. The spot where the animal was found was encircled by a red ring 

 on the glass-cover, and there could be no doubt that it lay just as it had been placed by 

 the authors. I did not open the preparation, as all I wished to see was clear enough. I 

 found what I expected: perfect, similarity oetween this specimen and my own males — , and 

 the statements of the authors proved to be incorrect in the following important points: 



1) »Les pattes nageoires font complement defaut, ou sont rMuites a des appendices 

 difficilement visibles (pt.)«. The first part of this sentence is right, but to judge from the 

 specimen in hand, the two dots marked pt. are spots possessing a slight deviation in the 

 refraction of light, and situated beneath the inner side of the skin; according to my expe- 

 rience with other animals, they are accidental. 



2) »La partie posterieure du corps est divisee en deux renflements arrondis renfermant 

 chacun une sphere a contour tres net dont le contenu est forme de quatre spheres appliquees 

 les lines contre les autres et deformees par pression reciproque comme les blastomeres d'un 

 oeuf au stade quatre de segmentation. Les deux sph^ro'ides sont des spermatheques« (p. 346 — 47). 

 In the following pages I also call the two globules spermatothecae, though I am not abso- 

 lutely certain that they are not testicles; so far we agree, but no further. In the male of 

 their preparation there was no vestige of a fold in the middle of the body. The spermato- 

 thecae showed inward folds which were not nearly so regularly arranged as it would appear 

 from their description and figuring of the contents, nay they seemed to be empty. A careful 

 and exact adjustment of the microscope showed that the granular substance usually contained 

 in the animal was outside the spermatothecae, though a less accurate adjustment might give 

 the impression that it also was inside; filled spermatothecae have a very different look. The 

 folds are easily explained by the flattening of the animal through the pressure to which it 

 had been exposed. 



3) About the antennulse they write: »elles sont formers d'une saillie basilaire sur 

 laquelle est insere un article unique en batonnet termine par une pointe courte«. However, 

 this » saillie basilaire « in their preparation is considerably longer and somewhat different in 

 shape from their figure of it; it is in fact the antennulae itself (comp. my figure pi. XII, 

 fig. 3k.). What they call »un article« is the olfactory seta; nor is its extremity so slender 

 and pointed as they represent it. 



4) They say about the mouth (p. 346): »La membrane de la ventouse est soutenue 

 par de fins rayons chitineux constituant les generatrices du tronc-cone. Ces rayons out ete 



