MONSTRILLA AND THE CYMBASOMATIDA. 123 
for the view so ingeniously supported by Steenstrup and 
Lutken, according to which view the parasitic Crustaceans 
do not form a special order, but only represent the para- 
sitic Lophyropoda. Every type of Lophyropod would, 
according to this theory, furnish a sucking sub-species. 
That is to say, it might appear here as a form of Gnath- 
ostoma, and there as a form of Cormostoma. . . . IL 
now find in the example before us a new warranty for the 
correctness of the above mentioned theory. Namely, 
Monstrilla appears as the Cormostoma or Siphonostoma 
form of a type, the Gnathostoma form of which is to be 
looked for in the genus Pontella.”’ 
IT am not aware that the further knowledge during the 
past quarter of a century since these words were written 
has in any way gone to substantiate the theory here in- 
dicated, and there certainly seems no better grounds for 
placing Monstrilla among the Pontellide than among the 
Coryceide. Finally Lubbock’s Baculus elongatus* which 
has been compared with Monstrilla by more than one 
author is probably a young stage of Lernea branchialis.+ 
For the present therefore I think that while Cymbasoma 
must be merged in Monstrilla, we are justified in separating 
(as I did in my paper in the Linnean Journal for 1887) 
this remarkable group of species from the other Copepoda 
as a distinct family, the Cymbasomatide, having the 
characters given above on p. 121; and the natural position 
of this family seems to be close to the Artotrogide, the 
proboscis of Monstrilla corresponding to the siphon of the 
Siphonostoma. 
*Trans. Linn. Soc., vol. XXIII, 1860. 
+Compare Proc. Biol. Soc., L’pool. vol. IIT. pl. VIII. fig. 6. 
