well-known gigantic work. In the Challenger Report G. O. 

 Sars attempted an interprétation of Dana's species, re'described 

 them and added seven new species to the genus; he pointed 

 out several new excellent characters, among which the number 

 of latéral denticles on the carapace and the shape of a leaflet or 

 a process on the distal upper end of first antennular joint. Ail 

 subséquent authors have followed the account of Sars almost 

 without attempting any correction not only as to the species of 

 this genus, but as to ail species of the order Euphausiacea ; 

 I am apt to think that his well-merited renown, his detailed 

 descriptions and numerous beautiful figures conveyed the 

 impression that his work could be considered correct in nearly 

 every détail. In m y former paper I pointed out some short- 

 comings in his account of Nematoscelis and Stylocheiron, but 

 further investigation shows that much more must be corrected. 



Dana's descriptions and figures of his four species of En- 

 phausia are so imperfect that only one of his forms, viz. the 

 gigantic Antarctic E. superba, can be recognized with any 

 certainty. I am, however, able to prove that Sars' interprétations 

 of the three other species, E. pellucida, E. splendens and. E. 

 g-radlis, must be erroneous (i). — Dana says on E. splendens : 

 « First joint of inner antennas oblong and produced at apex», 

 and « Abundant in the Atlantic in latitude 2° north, longi- 

 tude 17 0 west. » But first antennular joint has no leaflet and is 



(1) After the manuscript to this paper had been sent to the press, I 

 became aware of that Stebbing in his paper « On some Crustacea from the 

 Falkland Islands collected by Mr. Rupert Vallentin » (Proc. Zool. Soc. 

 London, May 22, 1900) sets forth critical remarks on Sars' interprétations of 

 Dana's species of the présent genus. Stebbing pointed out numerous diffé- 

 rences between the descriptions and figures published by Dana and those 

 given by Sars of the forms interpreted as identical ; furthermore he re-esta- 

 blished£.Mii//eri,Claus, and E. bidentata, G. O.S., as valid species. But his 

 criticism being based only on the literature — because he evidently did not 

 possess any material of the forms in question — his results are, and must 

 necessarily be, rather imperfect. He did not cancel any of Dana's species 

 as unrecognisable, his re-establishment of E. Mùlleri, Claus, is correct, 

 but from want of material he did not discover that E. bidentata, G. O. S., is 

 the same species, and that E. pellucida as hgured by Sars can not be iden- 

 tical with any form inhabiting the European seas; etc. But he has pointed 

 out that the interprétations in question given by Sars are at least very dubi- 

 ous, and this merit ought to be emphasized. 



