2 
278 Part L11.—Twenty-fowrth Annual Report 
LIdya minor, T. Scott. 
Laophonte curticauda, Boeck. 
gracilis, T. Scott. 
hispida, B. & R. 
inopinata, 'T. Scott. 
intermedia, T. Scott. 
littorale, T. and A. Scott. 
longiremts, T. Scott. 
a thoracicu, Boeck. 
Longipedia Scotti, G. O. Sars. 
Nannopus palustris, G. 8. Brady. 
Parathalestris hibernica (Brady & Robertson) 
Platychelipus littoralis, G. S. Brady. 
Pontopolites typicus, T. Scott. 
* Pseudothalestris major, T. and A. Scott. 
Stephos Scotti. G. O. Sars. 
J ) Tachidius dyupes, Giesb. 
/ a littoralis, Poppe. 
Zaus spinatus, Goodsir. 
9 
Genus Pseudodiosaccus, T. Scott (1906). 
Pseudodiosaccus propinguus (T. and A. Scott). Pl. xiv., figs. 19-29. 
1893. Diosaceus propinquus, T. and A. Scott. Ann. and Mag, 
Nat. Hist., sev. 6, vol. xii, (Oct., 1893), p. Zot; oleae 
figs. 1-6. 
1906. Pseudodiosaccus propinguus, T. Scott. Ann. and Mag, 
May, 1906, p. 465. 
This species was obtained in the Moray Firth, a few miles to the 
northward of Kinnaird Head, where the water is very deep; the parti- 
cular part where this species was obtained gave a sounding of 130 
fathoms (240 metres), the dredge line hanging free, and straight up and 
down. As the species appears to be rare, and as the number of drawings 
used to illustrate the description were only sufficient for its identification, 
I propose to supplement the original description with some additional 
remarks and drawings, especially as it has been considered necessary to 
remove the species from the genus to which it was first ascribed. 
* Professor G. O. Sars. in Vol. V. of his great work on the Crustacea of Norway, at 
present in course of publication, deals with what is probably the most difficult as well as 
the most interesting group of the Copepoda, viz.:—the Harpacticoida. In this volume, 
at p. 142, the learned author is inclined to regard Pseudothalestris major, 'T. and A. Scott, 
as identical with Westwoodia minuta, Claus. The description and figures of this form 
given by Dr. Claus are meagre—they are not only limited and indefinite, but it is only 
the male that he describes. On the other hand, Professor Sars’ description and figures 
of what he believes to be the female of Claus’ species are full and clear, like all that 
author’s work, and they no doubt show a certain close resemblance to the female of 
Pseudothalestris major. But there is at least one point where an important difference 
occurs. The author describes the antennules of the female as composed of six joints, 
whereas those of the female of Pseudothalestris major are eight-jointed, the first four 
being moderately elongated and the other four shorter. There appears also to be some 
difference in the structure of the posterior antenne. — 
It may also be noted that the same author makes Pseudothulestris Brady, a synonym 
of Westwoodia, Baird, but as the small group of species that have heen arranged under 
the genus name Pseudothalestris are clearly distinguishable from Westwoodia by the 
difference in the structure of the first pair of thoracic feet, I prefer to keep them separate 
under the genus instituted by Dr. Brady. The fact that al/ the species belonging to the 
group hitherto arranged together under Pseudothalestris are similarly characterised by 
the peculiarity in the structure of the tirst pair of feet that distinguishes them from the 
typical Westwoodia is, I think, a valid reason for keeping them separate from that genus, 
ae eta ei ngs a ee wer a 
