324: "ENDEAVOL'H'' SriKMll'K KKSTI.TS, 



the level of the 2nd pair of chelipeds." There are no 

 exopodites on any of the legs, the telson is without 

 movable spines, and the branchial formula is as given 

 by Alcock (loc. cit. p. 30), though his "somite VII (2nd 

 maxillipeds)'' should read somite VII (1st maxillipeds). 

 Epipodites are on the first two or three pairs of the 

 thoracic legs. 



Parapenceus politux Smith 13 is a characteristic 

 representative of the genus. The diagnostic longitudinal 

 and vertical suture lines are present on the carapace, the 

 thoracic legs are without exopodites there are epipodites 

 on the third legs, however and the telson is without 

 movable spines. There is no rudimentary arthrobranch 

 associated with the first maxilliped, as is the case with 

 Penceopsis, nor is there any vestige of an anterior one 

 on the penultimate pair of legs. In these several 

 respects, the species is like P. longirostris Lucas 11 from 

 the Mediterranean. But I am unable to understand 

 Bouvier's tabulation of the branchial formula of the 

 first maxillipeds of Parapenceus as "0 (on 2?)/ 1 unless 

 the U 2" be a misprint for "r" ( = = rudimentary). If this 

 be so, I should say the rudiment was suggested only to 

 enable him to accommodate doubtful or aberrant species 

 of Parapenaeids in the generic definition. Unfortunately, 

 I have but a single specimen of P. longirostris at hand. 



As noted by De Man (op. cit., pp. 78-82), P. fifssurus 

 (Bate), P. investigatoris Alcock & Anderson, and P. 

 longtpes Alcock have the characteristic suture lines, no 

 movable spines on the telson, no exopodites on the 

 thoracic legs and no epipodites on the third or following 

 pairs of legs. /-*. anicricanus Rathbun, 15 from Porto Rico, 

 exhibits the same features. 



Parapouritx paradoj-us (Bouvier) 10 perhaps does not 

 belong to this genus, as the description makes no 

 mention of the vertical suture across the branchiostegite 

 above the second pair of legs. If this is present, how- 

 ever, the species would certainly be a true Parapenwux, 

 and the above suggested definition of the genus would 

 have to be modified to include exopodites on the first 



13 Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. iii., 1881, p. 444 and v., 1885, p. 172. 



14 Cf. Bouvier, Res. Camp. Sci. Monaco xxxiii., 1908, p. 102. 

 1= Bull. U.S. Fish. Comm. for 1900, xx. (1901), pt. ii., p. 102, 



pi. ii. 



16 Cf. Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool. xxvii., 1909, No. 3, p. 220. 



