of the Fishery Board for Scotland. 175 
TABLE VI1.—continued. 
cn =a 
| rn 
| | 3 | 
| Months. Se 4 
Outer Stations— : eee eed f= = 
| continued. Mearshis|| { <i} pise 
ieee les ly sea} S| 
“ — J | te . CF | | 
| Pe cet. ee | bs | | ee | Tee | Sie) els iss 
Es) Aa; s i sg el hel | | | Oo 3 
| 1s BA |< Ss 5 Sele Soeue ee | 
| | | | (ac aeons este ead 
| | | I | — at 
| | ea iid h eA Be | sia | 
1889, is ee S03) LA ROLE ey 1 | 
| Hoy 
| 1890, fhe aces ANI SN aati ed i Fy oe | 6 | 
| 1891, 4 A rn ee ee gee ea bape ees ey 5 | 
| VII. PRTCOOMMAIMECM Or Ones  ) ol = le tee | 
| | 1893, it sdb Sh a ge a Pe a Ta fu 6 | 
| | | 
| 1894, Deere eee em a eee a4 
| | 1895, A ied i lie dh hye og lg Ne le 4 | 
ee ee Se sl [eteae Pee) A Re (ae ee el (Re eg ee S) De ek fee ba 
| | devel jae pivel | | 
Metecsssorthe Months, . 2. 1 5) 6} 2) 5/38 | 2.4) 1] - }.9] 2 36 | 
| — u : 
| | | | | 
ASCO oe to dete Ve Sees Tot) | 29 
| | | | 
' EEO ee es a | | a Ser: | 
| | | | | | 
| SOU ee | ala ea leo uth Ale Miheeenle at) (ees Mb 
| | | | | 
| TNE. feSO a Raat et ee ii ete ieeintont Ton 
| | | | | | 
1893, Ee SRE ts ee A) Pe RO roe F coe eh 2! lta | Dons 
| 1894, Wana TRAST eer Vey Saye | 
1895, oA Sb ee le ad I do ae Sa 
| a | 
| a || | | | | + 
| | | 
iotaistionthe Months, °.9)". 2°) 3 | 6 | 2/4) 9-4-1) pie) 8.)2 | 5 fag 
{ | 
} fas | 
The Table shows that the total number of records for Stations I., IIL., 
V., and VIII. is nearly the same ; and it is of interest to note that Stations 
IV. and [X., which are also nearly equal but show a smaller number of 
records than the others, might have been expected to have yielded 
very different results, as the first is an inshore station, while the other is 
the farthest seaward of all the Forth stations, being situated considerably 
east of the May Island. Another point of interest is, that besides the 
comparative absence of these Amphipods during the summer months there 
is evidence of a somewhat remarkable increase of those Crustaceans in the 
Forth in 1891 and 1892 compared with other years. With reference to 
the remarkable increase in the number of Parathemisto in the Forth 
during these two years, it is specially worthy of note that in February 
1892 an immense shoal of Huthemisto compressa—a species closely allied 
to Parathemisto in structure and habits—was observed off the Yorkshire 
coast. So great in number were they that the sea was described as 
“literally alive with them,” and it is stated that ‘“ heaps” of them ‘‘were | 
afterwards washed ashore by sea-winds, and afforded a feast for starlings 
and other frequenters of the tidal line.” * Some of these Huthemzsto found 
_ their way into the Forth estuary, and are mentioned among the tow-net 
records for that year. They were first observed in the Forth in February, 
* T, H. Nelson in ‘ Naturalist ’ tor May 1892, 
