6 



was based on the fact that it was much larger and lived on another species. The animal 

 did in fact prove to differ from Choniostoma mirabile; however, the two reasons alleged by 

 the authors proved to be wrong, for a female with eleven ovisacs found on Mippolyte Gai- 

 mardii and proving to be identical with the species on Hipp, polaris, was even somewhat 

 smaller than the largest Choniostoma mirabile. Consequently Chon. Hansenii is found on 

 two species of Hippolyte, whereas Chon. mirabile has as yet only been noticed on one. 



A. Gtiaed and J. Bonnier: Sur un Epicaride parasite d'un Amphipode et sur un 

 Copepode parasite d'un Epicaride (Comptes-rendus de l'Acad. des Sciences, 29 avril 1889). 

 This preliminary note is only mentioned here for the sake of completeness, as its contents 

 are largely worked out in the following publication. 



A. Giard and J. Bonnier: Note sur VAspidoecia Normani et sur la famille des 

 Choniostom,atid(B (Bull, scientifique de la France et de la Belgique, T. XX. 1889, p. 341 — 72, 

 PI. X — XI). In this paper the authors have partly described and figured the Aspidoecia 

 Normani, the new species and genus established in their preliminary note, partly given a 

 very detailed critique of all that has been written on the subject. Each of these parts de- 

 serves a special mention. Of their new species the authors have examined a female with 

 five ovisacs and two males attached to it, sitting on the back of the carapace of Erythrops 

 microphthalmia G. 0. Sars (belonging to Mysidae vera) under an obliquely placed Epicarid, 

 Aspidophryxus Sarsi Giard and Bonnier. Accidental circumstances led them to adopt the 

 following conclusion as the most plausible: »qu'il existe un rapport soit de parasitisme soit 

 de mutualisme« (p. 353) between Aspidoecia and Aspidophryxus (which is a mistake; o: below); 

 they say that the female Copepod »6tait relive a V Aspidophryxus par un appareil fixateur« 

 (p. 344), though such an object does not exist, and they declare that it »adh6rait certainement 

 a la Mysis par une ventouse« (p. 344), which is not the case either, as it is attached by 

 what later on I shall call »the adhesive plate « , a congealed substance forming a plate-like 

 cover on the forehead in front of the mouth, and which is secreted by the »glandes cemen- 

 taires« mentioned by the authors (p. 349). In their description of the female (p. 347 — 50) 

 they mention »les deux points chitineux« (entrances to the receptacula seminis), and they 

 give a correct description of the genital apertures, except that the small opening which they 

 call »pore de f6condation«, and of which they say that it serves »6videmment a l'entree des 

 spermatozoides«, does not serve this purpose at all. They have found »la ventouse« on the 

 head , but they cannot make out whether the mouth is situated at the bottom of it (which 

 it does), or whether it is found »a la partie sup6rieure de la ventouse, celle-ci servant 

 uniquement a la fixation du parasite «. Finally, they have overlooked the antennulae, the 

 maxillulse and the maxillae. However, it must be borne in mind that having had only one 

 individual which they were not allowed to dissect, it would be unfair to expect them to be 

 able to study the organs of this small and extremely difficult animal much better thau they 

 have done. "With regard to the male the case is different; it is much easier to examine, 

 besides they had two specimens. After having studied my own material of the same species, 



