SUMMARY OF RESULTS. 
1443 
development of spines upon the body. It is more or less true in other groups of the Crustacea that the very 
spiny forms are either deep-sea, or, if shallow-water, are from the Arctic or Antarctic shores, where the 
conditions of temperature are not so widely different.” ^ 
Brady writes : “ As to the relations between the Ostracoda of distant parts of the globe and those of the 
European seas, — or rather of the British and Scandinavian seas, those being the only districts which, as yet, 
have been tolerably well explored, — some scanty, though interesting, observations may be made. I have, 
elsewhere, had occasion to note the occurrence at Kerguelen Island of a very common European Copepod, 
Harpactkus fulvus, which in that distant spot inhabits precisely the same sort of places as in Europe. And 
now, in the lists of the Kerguelen Island Ostracoda, we may notice an affinity with the European fauna mucli 
closer than that of any other locality coming into the scope of this memoir. The British residents found in 
that distant home are Pseudocythere caudata, Sclerochilus contortus, Paradoxostoma abhreviatum, Kritlie 
hartonensis, Xestoleheris depressa, and Polycope orbicularis. . . . Xestoleberis depressa [taken at Kerguelen and 
Heard Islands] is a common species in the Northern Hemisphere, having been found in the seas of Great 
Britain, Ireland, Norway, Spitzbergen, and the Gulf of St Lawrence ... It is not a little remarkable that 
one of the two species [of Paradoocostoma\ described in this monograph {Paradoxostoma ensiforme) is from a 
European dredging, and is a well-known European species, while the other, also known as an inhabitant of 
Europe, is from Kerguelen Island, a locality which, of all others, has shown in its entomostracan fauna a close 
resemblance to that of Europe. . . . Zoologically, the most remarkable character of Xestoleberis is its being 
viviparous ; the fry are retained within the shell of the mother until very fully developed ; this, perhaps, may 
account for the great posterior expansion of the female carapace.” ^ 
MTntosh states : “ The members of this family [Ampliaretidse] . . . are perhaps more abundant in Arctic 
and Antarctic seas than in the warmer oceans.” ® 
Theel writes: Elpidia glacialis is found in the Arctic Ocean and in the North Atlantic, in addition 
to which one individual has been brought home from Station 160, South of Australia. Lxtmogone violacea was 
dredged by the Challenger Expedition close to Sydney, and during the cruise of the ‘Knight Errant’ 
between the Faroe Islands and the coast of Scotland. ... It cannot be doubted that those two almost antipodal jpqloxjjurioidea 
forms will be found at many interjacent localities when a larger area of the oceanic abysses has been explored Qp Northern' 
. . . The discovery of this specimen [of Elpidia. glacialis^ in a locality so far south as the neighbourhood of the and Southern 
Antarctic sea is of the greatest interest, considering that this species during the last six or seven years lias Hemispheres. 
been found living rather commonly in the North Atlantic Ocean and in the Arctic Ocean (Sea of Kara). 
Elpidia glacialis seems able to exist under very various conditions ; the individual brought home by the 
Challenger Expedition proves that it lives at the greatest depth, up to 2600 fathoms, while those from the 
Arctic sea are found at depths of only 50 to 150 fathoms. . . . \^Kolga nana'\ is not the only example among the 
Holothurids from the great depths of the sea, where representatives of the same species or at least of the most 
nearly allied forms are found in or near the Arctic sea, and also in the neighbourhood of the Antarctic Ocean.” ^ 
Theel says further : “ With respect to the Arctic and Antarctic regions, the observations hitherto made 
seem to establish that not a single species of the [shore] Holothurioidea is common to both seas. Notwith- 
standing this the shallow-water fauna of the two regions possesses much the same features. Thus the northern 
forms, Cuciimaria frondosa, Trochostoma borealis, Psolus squamatus, Psolus fabricii, Holothuria intestinalis, 
&c., are represented in the Antarctic Sea by Gucumaria Ixvigata, Cucumaria crocea, Trochostoma violacea, 
Psolus ephippifer, Psolus antarcticus, and Holothuria magellani. I have had all these forms at my 
disposal, with the exception of Holothuria magellani, and they appear to be distinct from one another, 
though the distinguishing characters, it must be confessed, often seem to be rather inconsiderable, and 
possibly not of specific value. It is, however, of importance not to neglect such small characters, which 
unquestionably have a much greater consequence than may be at first supposed. According to my opinion, 
every example proving that the Arctic and Antarctic shallow- water faunae are different is of value, for 
I cannot conceive how it is possible that they can have animals which are entirely similar. Of course, I do 
not take into consideration such forms as pass their existence on the bottom of the deep sea or at the 
^ Zool. Chall. Exp., pt. xlviii. p. 167. - Zool. Chall. Exp., pt. iii. pp. 4, 124, 125, 149, 150. 
^ Zool. Chall. Exp., pt. xxxiv. p. 424. Zool, Chall. Exp., pt. xiii. pp. 4, 18, 19, 42. 
