iS 
sinous in shape, and the distal end is more contracted than in Centropages gracilis. The right 
fifth foot of the male is quite distinct from that of the male of Cextropages violaceus. 
WOLFENDEN 1905(a) is inclined to doubt the correctness of the record of Centropages 
violaceus in the report on the Ceylon Copepoda by the late I. C. THompson and the present 
writer. He suggests that the species is really Centropages gracilis. Both species however, are 
recorded in that report from the neighbourhood of Ceylon, in addition to the other records 
obtained by examining the samples collected during the voyages out to the Island and back. 
Although Wotrenpen did not find Centropages violaceus in the Maldive plankton, it does not 
follow that it ought to be absent from the Ceylon fauna. WoLFENDEN’s experience amongst the 
Copepoda ought to have taught him, that it does not always follow that a marine species, 
no matter where it be originally found, will not prove through some future investigation, to 
have a wider distribution than its describer could be aware of. The present report gives striking 
examples of this. Cenxtropages violaceus was described by Cravs (not GlEsBRECHT as WOLFENDEN 
has it) from Mediterranean specimens. I have undoubted examples of it from the Atlantic, off 
Cape Town, obtained from plankton collected by Professor Herpman, during his ocean journeys 
to and from the meeting of the British Association, in South Africa in 1905. 
Centropages gractlts, so far, is only known from the Indian and Pacific Oceans. 
5. Centropages orsinie Giesbrecht. 
Centropages orsini Giesbrecht, 1880, p. 811. 
Centropages orsini Giesbrecht, 1893, p. 305, pls. 17, 18 & 38. 
Centropages orsini Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898, p. 57. 
Centropages orsinu Cleve, 1901, p. 5. 
Centropages orsinit A. Scott, 1902, p. 404. 
Centropages orsinit Thompson & Scott, 1903, p. 247. 
Centropages orsinmi Cleve, 1903, p. 359. 
Centropages orsini Wolfenden, 1905 (a), p. 1015 pl. XCVIII. 
This member of the genus appeared to be more common than the last species. It had 
also a slightly wider distribution as shewn by the following records. 
Stat. 16. — Stat. 40. — Stat. 47°. — Stat. 66. — Stat. 71. — Stat. 96 (day). — Stat. 96 
(night). — Stat. 109: — Stat. 110. — Stat. 117%. — Stat. 118 (HENSEN vertical net, 900 
metres to surface). — Stat. 122. — Stat. 133. — Stat. 142. — Stat. 213. — Stat. 282. — 
Stat. 304. 
Centropages orsina has a certain amount of resemblance to Centropages kroyerz, but it can 
readily be separated from that species by the structure of the fifth pair of feet of the two sexes. 
The projection of the second joint of the exopodite of the female fifth pair is short and stout. 
It is beset with small spines. In Cextropages kroyert the projection is comparatively slender, and 
it is without spines. The claw-like joint of the male right fifth foot is longer than the projection 
of the second joint. In Centropages kroyerd the projection is longer than the claw-like joint. 
GIESBRECHT’s type specimens where obtained from the Red Sea. The species is evidently 
well distributed in the Indian Ocean as proved by the later records. 
115 
