of the Fishery Board for Scotland. 215 
Remarks.—The Notopterophorus described in the preceding notes, 
though it does not conform altogether to Hesse’s description of Votoptero- 
phorus papilio, agrees with it in several important particulars, and I am 
therefore inclined to ascribe it to that species. Moreover, the mouth 
appendages described and figured here are apparently identical with those 
of the form recognised as belonging to Hesse’s species in Dr. Brady’s 
‘Monograph of the Free and Semi-parasitic Copepoda of the British 
Islands,” vol. 1., p. 142, plate xxxi., figs. 3-12. 
The two habitus figures given in M. Hesse’s original work and repro- 
duced in the Monograph referred to are, in respect of the slender form of 
the cephalo-thorax, unlike any of the specimens I have examined. On 
the other hand, Hesse’s description of the cephalo-thorax and abdomen 
agrees tolerably well with Scottish specimens of the adult female.* 
Another point of interest which is noticed by Dr. Brady is the great 
similarity between this species and the members of another genus, and in 
referring to this he says that “except for the peculiar wing-like dorsal 
appendages there seems to be little to separate this genus from 
Doropygus,” and this corresponds with the opinions of other observers, 
and is also supported by the Doropygus-like form of the young female, 
and still more by the general character of the male. Still, the presence 
in the adult female of these remarkable appendages is in itself, I think, 
a sufficient reason for separating this and similar forms under the 
distinctive name established by Costa and utilised by M. Hesse. 
The purpose which these curious and wing-like expansions serve in the 
life-history of the creature may be, as M. Hesse suggests, to assist its 
movements “or to aid in removing obstacles from its path.” I am 
inclined, however, to agree with Dr. Brady, who says—“ For my own part 
I find it difficult to believe that these excessively delicate organs can be 
of much use for such purposes, or to understand why, if they are so used, 
they should be entirely wanting in so many other species which live 
under the same conditions. We must, I think, admit that their use is at 
present quite unknown.”t 
I have obtained this Copepod in large Ascidians from various Scottish 
localities, but nowhere so common as in Ascidians dredged in Scapa 
Flow, Orkney. The branchial chamber of the large Ascidians dredged 
there was sometimes crowded with these Copepods. 
Though many specimens have been examined by me from Scottish waters, 
they were apparently all of the one species, but examples were obtained 
in different stages of development, from the young females without dorsal 
appendages, or with a mere indication of them, to those that were adult 
and whose dorsum was ornamented with the appendages fully expanded. 
In full-grown specimens the ovigerous sac was usually so distended, 
and the integument so thin and transparent, that through it the eggs or 
larve could be seen crowded together. Occasionally examples were 
observed with the ovigerous sac empty and collapsed, its contents having 
been set free. 
Herr R. Buchholz has described what appears to be a different species 
from that of M. Hesse under the name of Votopterophorus elongatus,t 
which is also referred to by Dr. Giesbrecht in his remarks on the 
* Referring to this part of the animal, Hesse says :—‘‘ Le thorax est gros et court; il 
se divise en cing articles &4 peu prés de la méme grandeur, sauf pourtant le dernier que 
est le double des autres, et que acqniert encore un volume plus considérable 4 mesure qu 
‘il se remplit d’ceufs, et que ceux-ci se développement par l’incubation.” 
t Brady, op. cit., p. 144. 
| ‘‘ Beitrage zur Kenntniss der innerhalb der Ascidien lebenden parasitischen Crustaceen 
ree a Zettschr. Wiss. Zool., Band 19, p. 127, taf. viii., fig. 6, and taf. ix., 
g. - ae 
