COPEPODA 97 



32), but the hairs are stiffer, and the row is distally turning around margin posteriorly. The fifth pair 

 of the legs (fig. 7 h) is in several respects different from that of G. tenuispinus (fig. 8 a). 



Parasites ? "Sacshaped" structures, like those of preceding species in a similar position were 

 found in a single female from Thor St. 152 and in 29 females from Thor St. 183. 



Occurrence. The Ingolf Expedition has not taken this species, but the S/S. Thor gathered it 

 at a few stations in Denmark Strait and south of Iceland viz: 



'9/61904. St. 152. 65°oo Iv. N. 28°io L. W. Yt. 800 M. Wire n f$. 



2 % 1904. St. 153. 65^0 D.N. 27°i2-5L. W. Yt. 800 M. Wire if?. 



V 9 1904. St. 285. 62°49 Iv. N. iS^o L. W. Yt. 500 M. Wire 1 f<?. 



»/ 7 1904. St. 183. 6i c 30 L. N. i7°o8 U W. Yt. 1800 M. Wire 160 f ?; 3 f <J; 10 y? (V); 42 yd" (V). 



2 V 5 1904. St. 104. 62°47 Iv. N - I 5°°3 L.W. Yt. 1500 M. Wire 2 f ?. 



Distribution etc. As the circumscription of this .species is not quite sure, I feel obliged before 

 discussing its distribution, to write a few words about the synonymy. 



The described species differs from Sars' G. brevispinus by the somewhat smaller size, by the 

 divided rostrum and by the much longer lateral spines; as Sars does not seem to have realised the 

 importance of the characters found in the laminous process of maxillipeds and in the curious setae of the 

 second basipodite of pes IV, the fact that he does not mention these characters is scarcely of impor- 

 tance. Wolfenden's description of the female as well as of the male is very incomplete; the females 

 are bigger than my specimens, and the lateral corners seem to be like those of my specimens. 

 Farran has (1908 p. 32) examined specimens from the west coast of Ireland, which, as far as his few 

 remarks go, show exactly the same differences from Sars' description as my specimens do; really I 

 do not doubt that they belong to the same species. Farran has, however, referred his specimens to 

 Sars' G. affinis, and Sars has himself confirmed this identification, though his original specimens of 

 G. affinis only measured 3-6 mm. Sars' description is too incomplete to be of much value. Though 

 Sars regards G. brevispinus as well as affinis from the Monaco Expedition as different species, it is 

 most probable that the animals which are recorded from the Fa^roe channel and the north-east 

 Atlantic under the name of G. major, affinis and brevispinus ought to be referred to the same species, 

 varying in size from 3-6 to 4-65 mm. If this species is not identical with G. brevispinus its name ought 

 to be G. major Wolf. This species or variety is distributed as far north as Denmark Strait and 

 the Faeroe-Iceland channel, and is found as far south at least as 50 D- N.; G. brevispinus proper 

 which, as seen above, differs from the southern form by the larger size and shorter lateral spines, has been 

 taken in the western part of the polar basin crossed by Nans en (at 84 h. N. rather plentifully), once 

 in the sea between Finmarken and Jan Mayen, but rather curiously not in any of the numerous 

 samples brought home by the Due d'Orleans. 



From G. intermedins Wolf, it differs by the less pointed lamina of the basipodite of the 

 maxillipeds. 



25. Gaetanus Kruppi? Giesbr. 

 (PI. Ill figs 3 a — h; text-figs 25 a— o). 



April 1903? Gaetanus Kruppi u. sp. Giesbrecht, p. 202, pi. I 1903? Gaetauus armiger Giesbr. J. C. Thompson, p. 17. 



VII fig. 8, pi. VIII fig. 29. J June 1903? major 11. sp. Wolfendeu, p. 125. 



The Ingolf-Expedition. III. 4. *3 



