Localities. — Stat. 1676, 2 spécimens; stat. 1749, 3 spéci- 

 mens; stat. 1760, 5 spécimens; stat. 1768, 1 spécimen; stat. 

 1794, 1 spécimen; stat. 1797, 4 spécimens; stat. 1800, 1 spéci- 

 men; (stat. 1802, 1 very small, dubious spécimen); stat. 1849, 

 1 spécimen; stat. 1 856, 1 spécimen. — I give this revised list of 

 stations, because in the former paper I had not separated some 

 spécimens of T. œqualis from the présent form. 



Remarks. — As pointed out in my former treatise T. obtusi- 

 frons, G. O. S., differs — according to the description and the 

 figures in the Challenger Report — in four features from 

 T. vulgaris. Two of the three spécimens, ail from the Pacific, 

 on which Sars established his T. obtusifrons, are preserved in 

 the British Muséum. Recently Dr. Caïman has kindly examined 

 some parts of thèse spécimens for me ; his letter and sketches 

 show, however, that they differ from each other and from the 

 représentation in the Challenger work. Dr. Caïman writes 

 that the spécimen « from Station 285, lat. 32° 36' S., long. 1 37 0 

 43' W., is marked as the « Type ». I cannot see any denticles on 

 the sides of the carapace. At the most, there is a very minute 

 mark near the position whcre the denticle would lie, which might 

 be the scar left if the very small denticle were broken off. On 

 the other side of the spécimen the edge of the carapace is dama- 

 ged at this place ». His sketch shows the antennular lobe from 

 first joint to be about as large as in T. vulgaris, while its outer 

 distal angle or the front margin near that angle is produced 

 into a small triangular tooth. But on the other spécimen Dr. 

 Caïman writes that « it has a pair of very distinct latéral den- 

 ticles on the carapace near the posterior margin », and that its 



« antennular lobe has a very différent outline from that of 



the type»; according to his sketch this lobe agrées as to size 

 and shape of its front margin more with that in T. œqualis than 

 with the lobe of the «type». Judging from thèse particulars I 

 am sure that Sars has referred two species to his T. obtusifrons, 

 furthermore I am less convinced that T. vulgaris, H. J. H., is 

 a species distinct from T. obtusifrons, G. O. S., in spite of the 

 différences between the représentation given by Sars and my 

 spécimens from the Atlantic. But having no material from the 



(42) 



