216 Part III—Twenty-fifth Annual Report 
Notodelphyide* ; while Dr. Canu, referring to the distribution of this 
species, speaks of it as occurring in the Mediterranean, the English 
Channel (Manche), and the North Sea.t Dr. G. S. Brady records the 
occurrence of one or two specimens of Notopterophorus elongatus 
amongst some things sent to him by the Rev. A. M. Norman, but which 
were lost during examination and before they were described and 
figured.t Possibly the form described here should be referred to the 
same species, and ultimately this may be necessary. Meantime, however, 
I am inclined to identify it with the form described by M. Hesse. 
In the figure of Notopterophorus elongatus given by Dr. Bucholz 
(fig. 6a, pl. viii.) in the work referred to in the footnote, the dorsal 
appendages are without whip-like filaments; and the excellent drawings 
of the same form in plate xxiii. of Dr. Giesbrecht’s Bedtrdge represent 
these appendages as bearing minute hairs instead of the long filaments 
seen in JV. papilio. 
Tribe Caligoida. 
Fam. Caligide. 
Genus Vogagus, Leach (1819). 
Nogagus latus, sp.n. Pl. xv., figs. J-9 (6). 
This species and the one to be immediately described are both males, 
and are for the present referred to the genus Vogagus, Leach ; they were 
observed on dog-fishes captured in the North Sea. 
The genus Nogagus is not a satisfactory one, and though meantime 
allowed to stand, is not considered valid. The various forms that have | 
been included in this genus are all of them males, and are supposed to 
belong to other genera, of which the females only are known, 2.e.,— 
Pandarus, Leach, Dinemoura, Baird, Echthrogaleus, Stp. and Liithk, 
etc., and a few of them have already turned out to be the males of such 
genera. 
The males and females of those species that have already been satisfac- 
torily identified—as, for example, Pandarus carcharie, Leach (thefemale), 
and Nogagus Cranchi, Van Beneden (the male)—are so unlike each other, 
not only in general appearance, but also to some extent in structure, that 
it is difficult to believe, without having sufficient proof of their identity, 
that they can belong to the same species. Yet it seems to be the case, in 
these examples at least, that the difference between them, though so 
pronounced, is only sexual, and due probably to a difference in the 
habits of the animals, the male perhaps living a more free life than the 
female, 
Steenstrup and Liitken divided the Vagagi into two groups, the chief 
differences between them being that in the first the urosome (abdomen) 
and both branches of the first four pairs of thoracic feet consist of two 
articulations, while in the second the urosome and both branches of the 
fourth pair of feet are uni-articulate. 
One of the forms now to be described— the one named above—appears 
to be referrable to the first group, but the other differs slightly from 
both. 
* “ Beitrage zur Kenntniss einiger Notodelphyiden.” Mitth. Zool., Stat. Neapel, 3 
Band, pp. 327, 328, taf. xxii.-xxiv. (1882). 
+ “‘ Les Copépodes du Boulonnais.” Trav. du Laborat. de Zool. Mar. des: Wimereux- 
Ambleteuse (Pas-de-Calais), Tome vi., p. 191 (1892). 
} ‘ British Copepoda,” vol. i., p. 144. 
one: a ing 
