68 
Zoology, 
a very rough selection and examination I have been able to make up 
the following preliminary account of species accurately distinguished. 
To this list there will be added many more when all the classes and the 
pelagic forms are worked up by specialists. Thus I have obtained 
from the dredging material : 
Pisces^ 
10 
Crustacea : Decapoda^ 
10 
Schizopoda, 
2 
Cumacea^ 
2 
Isopoda^ 
5 
Amphipoda, 
20 
Pycnogonida^ 
2 
Mollusca : Cephalopoda^ 
I 
Gastropoda^ 
15 
Lamellibranchiata, 
II 
Tunicaia, 
6 
Brachiopoda^ 
I 
Fermes, 
15 
Echinodermata : Crinoidea, 
2 
Asteroidea, 
4 
Ophiuroidea, 
10 
Echinoidea, 
I 
Total, 115 species (at least) 
Polyzoa^ hydrozoa and spoiigice are to be added to this list, besides 
all animals obtained with the surface-net and in some fresh-water pools 
at Godhavn, which I found to contain great numbers of Branchippus, 
Apus, copepods, ostracods and other organisms not yet examined. 
If the number of species already classified (which will be consider- 
ably increased after a more careful and detailed examination of the 
whole material), is compared with a list of the collection brought 
home by the Nares’ Expedition of 1875-1876, the result will be some- 
what surprising when we find that our material, obtained in a few 
dredgings and almost exclusively at one station, viz., in Inglefield 
Gulf, will, probably, exceed that collection in number both of species 
and individuals. It is true that the Nares’ collection was obtained 
farther north from lat. 78° to 83° N., within an area where one might 
possibly expect the fmna to be poorer on account of the geographical 
position in higher latitude. Nevertheless, considering the great num- 
ber of dredgings and the extensive circuit within which they were car- 
ried on, the difference in regard to number of species and individuals 
secured during both expeditions is a remarkable one. It would be 
