354 
ZOOLOGICAL LITEllATUllE. 
cornis (Claus), C. hamatus (Lilljeborg), Boeck, 1. c. p. 20, from Christiana- 
fjord, is synonymous with I. angustata of Claus. 
Ichthyophorha clenticomis (Claus), Brady, Nat. Hist. Trans. North. & 
Durh. vol. i, p. 40, and Intell. Observ. vol. vii. p. 19, pi. i. fig. 4, from coast 
of Durham; I. hamata (Lillj.), Brady, Nat. Hist, Trans. North. & Durh. 
vol. i. p. 39, and Jntell. Observ. vol. vii. p. 9, from Shetland, Durham, and 
the Channel Islands. {Vide the previous genus and species.) 
P(EOILOPODA. 
SIPHONOSTOMATA. 
Prof. Kroyer (Nat. Tidssk. 1863-64, pp. 75-426, pis. 1-18) 
has described and figured ninety-six species of parasitic Crus- 
tacea which have accumulated in the museums of Copenhagen 
and Vienna since the publication of his treatise on these 
animals in the same journal in 1838. He adheres, in the pre- 
sent memoir, to the classification of Prof. Milne-Edwards ; he 
however, thinks that ThorelPs proposition (K. Vet.-Akad. vol. iii.) 
for a division of the Copepoda into, 1, those having free mandibles, 
Gnathostoma ; 2, those without mandibles, Pcscilostoma ; 3, those 
haying mandibles enclosed within a tube, Biphonostoma, is based 
on sound principles. On the other hand, he thinks that the views 
of Steenstrup and Liitken, which are based on the number and 
arrangement of the ovisacs, are valueless and inconvenient, 
since the female often difiPers much from the male, which the 
author considers the more typical, and because several genera, 
such as NotodelpMjSy PoropyguSy &c., resemble Argulus in being 
without external ovisacs, and yet by the structure of the mouth 
would group with the Siphonostomata. 
The author appears to be opposed to the opinion of Zenker 
and Thorell (the memoir of the latter, having been published 
almost simultaneously with Kroyer^s, could not have been known 
to him, vide ^ Zool. Becord,^ vol. i. p. 302*), that should 
be arranged with the Branchiopoda; and discusses the homolo- 
gical relations of the cephalic appendages, contending that the 
anterior pair of hook-shaped organs, described by Milne-Ed- 
wards as the only pair of antennre, is the second pair, and cor- 
responds both in form and position with those of CaliguSy which 
Milne-Edwards describes as the first pair of footjaws, but 
which Brof. Kroyer contends are the second pair of antenna 3 . 
The organs described by Milne-Edwards as the second pair 
d^appendices antenniformes in Argidus, Prof. Kroyer believes to 
be the first pair of ordinary feet [pereiopoda] , since the suckers, 
both from their development and from comparative observations 
* We take this opportunity of correcting an error in the ^ Becord ’ of tlio 
E receding year, p. 303, where the Recorder speaks of a pair of anteimuo 
eing Jived organs;” this ought to he “organs of iixing.” — Ed. 
