al 
shewn by the results of the investigations now being carried out on the lines laid down by 
the Conseil Permanent International pour l’Exploration de la Mer. ; 
It is demonstrated in the present report that some of the deep water pelagic Copepoda 
of the North Atlantic are identical with forms from the deep water of the Malay Archipelago. 
To suggest that this similarity may be accidental, or the result of ocean currents, would not 
account for the occurrence of such species in areas so widely apart, unless we know a very 
ereat deal regarding the Copepoda inhabiting the vast area of deep water that intervenes. The 
Elensen net, if it had opened up no other line of observation than that of obtaining a continuous 
vertical sample of plankton from any depth to the surface, has proved of great service where 
it has been employed. No plankton observations can now be regarded as satisfactory unless this 
particular net is extensively employed along with ordinary nets worked at or near the surface. 
An ordinary tow-net is of little use in collecting littoral forms of Copepoda that live at 
or on the sea bottom and are rarely able to swim any distance. Other methods, such as dredging 
up samples of invertebrata and mud, and washing out the minute Copepoda, or investigating 
the shore between tide marks, must be pursued to obtain such types. It would be quite erroneous 
to suggest that littoral Copepoda are absent from an area that is only investigated by tow-net, 
should none be found. 
Dr. WoLFENDEN in his report on the Copepoda collected by J. STANLEY GARDINER around 
the Maldive and Laccadive Islands, attempts to draw some conclusions from the species of 
Copepoda recorded in his own report when compared with the forms recorded from Ceylon, 
especially the paucity of littoral forms in the Maldive area, that appear to be based on insuf- 
ficient data. The record of no less than 84 species in the report on the Ceylon Copepoda is 
chiefly due to a piece of luck, and a suggestion by the writer to save all the debris mixed 
with the dredged invertebrata that had been brought back. Many of the larger invertebrata 
had been wrapped in paper previous to being placed in the store tanks, but this became greatly 
disintegrated in the process of sorting out the material, and added to the labour involved in 
working through the sand and mud left after the large specimens had been removed. It is 
certainly more troublesome to work through a bottle of debris, especially when largely mixed 
with shredded paper, than going over a collection of pelagic forms taken by tow-net. The 
washings from a sample of pearl oysters from Muttuvaratu Paar presented us with 32 species 
of Harpacticoida that were not found in any of the tow-net collections, or even in any of the 
other washings. It must be obvious, that the majority of the littoral Copepoda recorded in the 
Ceylon report could not have been obtained had we neglected the debris. Of the eight species 
of Harpacticoida recorded by Wo.trenpen from the Maldive area, no less than five of them 
are purely pelagic forms. The other three may have been accidentaly swimming near the 
surface in very shallow water. There is no evidence in the report that true littoral species of 
Harpacticoida, Lichomolgidae or Asterocheridae were looked for. The more recent origin of 
the Maldive group, compared with Ceylon, is not a very satisfactory solution of the apparent 
paucity of the littoral Copepoda. 
When we find European Harpacticoida like Phyllothalestris mysts and Rhynchothalestris 
rufocincta both present in the Malay Archipelago, one is inclined to regard the apparent absence 
4 
