— i6 — 



stat. 1768, 17 spécimens; stat. 1781, 1 2 spécimens ; stat. 1749, 

 9 spécimens; stat. 1797, 8 spécimens; stat. 1800, 2 spécimens; 

 stat. 1802, 4 spécimens; stat. 1884, 3 spécimens: stat. 1849, 

 1 spécimen; stat. 1 856, i5 spécimens. 



Distribution. — This species has not been taken in the 

 eastern part of the Atlantic off the European coast, but in the 

 Sargasso Sea in lat. 40 3/4° - 41 2/3° N., long. 40 0 - 41 2/3° W., 

 and in the Mediterranean (Monaco collection). The Copenhagen 

 Muséum possesses spécimens from lat. 37 0 N., long. 41 0 W., 

 from. lat. 33° N., long. 47 0 W.,from lat. 24 0 N., long. 22°W., 

 from two localities in the Atlantic respectively near the nor- 

 thern and the southern tropic, from a place near lat. 23° S. , long. 

 8i° E., and from the southern end of Japan. 



Remarks. — This small species is easily distinguished from 

 the three precedîng forms, but it is probably closely allied to — 

 if not identical with — the following species. 



Euphausia diomedeae, Ortm. 



Euphansia diomedeœ, Ortmann, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 

 Vol. xxv, 1894, p. 102, fig. 3. 



Ortmann writes : « Frontal part of the carapace produeed as 

 a broad triangular-pointed plate, arched over the eyes, and 

 covering their peduncles »; according to his figure the proximal 

 portion of this frontal part is more expanded and its margin 

 more convex than in E. brevis, leaving only a very narrow part 

 of the eye-stalks uncovered; the tip is acute, but a narrow 

 rostrum is not developed. Furthermore the author states : « Basai 

 joint of antennula with a projecting leaflet above, divided into 

 two lappets at the top ». But on his figure the shape of thèse 

 two leaflets is in ail probability rather incorrect; besides no 

 armature is shown at the end of second antennular joint, but 

 whether a spine is really wanting or only overlooked must 

 remain uncertain. The species has been established on two 

 spécimens taken by the Albatross near the Galopagos Islands. 

 Ortmann's opinion : « Perhaps E. diomedeœ might be better 

 regarded as a variety of E. pellucida », is certainly wrong, but 

 possibly it may be identical with my E. brevis. Ortmann does 



