200 Part ITI, —Hleventh Annual Report 
+ 
Longwpedia coronata, var. minor, T. and A. Scott. .(Pl. IL. figs. 14-20.) 
1893. Longipedia coronata, var. minor, T. and A. Scott, * Ann. * 
Scot. Nat. Hist.,’ vol. i. pt. 2, p. 93. 
1882. (?) Longipedia coronata, Giesbrecht, loc. cit. 
Length from apex of rostrum to end of caudal stylets, exclusive of tail 
setee, °82 mm. (one-thirtieth of an inch). Female—anterior and posterior 
antenne and mouth organs similar to those of Longipedia coronata, but 
smaller. Male—anterior antenne short and robust, much less setiferous 
than those of the female, hinged between the third and fourth joints, 
terminal joint forming a comparatively smail and curved claw-like 
appendage (fig. 15). First pair of swimming feet somewhat similar to 
those of Longipedia coronata, but smaller. The second pair in the 
female differ from those of Longipedia coronata in the following particulars : 
—The outer branch is considerably longer in proportion to the inner 
branch, the end of the second joint in the one reaching to about the end 
of the second joint in the other; and the long third joint of the inner 
branches is only about one and a half times the length of the outer 
branches ; and the spine on the outer aspect of the long third joint is 
situated between the two spines on the inner aspect, but nearer to the 
proximal one (fig. 16). The exterior spine on the long third joint 
is wanting in the male; the outer branch of the second pair of the 
male is also somewhat, proportionally shorter than in the female (fig. 17). 
The other swimming feet are nearly similar to those of Longipedia 
coronata, but are rather smaller. ‘The fifth pair in the female differ con- 
siderably from those of Longipedia coronata in the form of the secondary 
branch (or joint). This branch is elongate and narrow (fig. 18), the greatest 
breadth beine only equal to about one-fourth of the length; and also, 
though the var. m7/nor is little more than half the length of the (supposed) 
typical form, the length of the secondary branch of its fifth foot is greater 
than that of the other. ‘This difference may be indicated in another way 
—i.e., in Longipedia coronata the jength of the secondary branch of the 
fifth foot is scarcely equal to one-fourteenth of the entire length of the 
animal, but in Longipedia coronata, var. minor, the length of the 
secondary branch is equal to one-eighth of the length of the animal. In 
the male the fifth pair are small, and the basal joint is proportionally 
rather more developed than in the female; the secondary branch is rather 
broader and shorter; and the interior spiniform basal seta is straight, and 
considerably shorter than in the female (fig. 20). The appendages of the 
first abdominal segment in the male are nearly as large as the basal part 
of the fifth feet, and are furnished with three sete. The central one of 
the three marginal spines of the last abdominal segment is not so large 
proportionally, and the apical setae of the caudal stylets are much longer 
than in Longipedia coronata (fig. 19). One ovisac. Frequent in dredged 
material from Largo Bay and off Musselburgh. This is certainly not the 
form described as Longipedia coronata (male) in the monograph of the 
British Copepoda ; neither does it appear to agree with that described by 
Claus, except in the arrangement of the spines on the last elongate joint 
of the inner branch of the second pair of swimming feet, but it agrees in 
size and in structural details with that described by Giesbrecht in his 
account of the free living Copepoda of Kiel fiord. 
Genus Canuella, T. and A. Scott. 
‘Ann. Scot. Nat. Hist.,’ 1893. 
Longipedia, Brady (in part). 
Somewhat like Longipedia coronata, Claus ; but the inner branches of 
the second pair of swimming feet are not longer than the outer branches. 
