220 



rn )ici\ I have hitherto only met with this form in the uppert part 

 of the ( 'hristiania Fjo>d. ;it ;i short distance from the town. It occurred here 

 not [infrequently in a depth of 36 fathoms on a muddy bottom covered with 

 decaying algae. 



Distribution. British Isles (Scott). 



141. Ameira tenella, G-. (). Sars, n. sp. 



(PI. CXLV). 



>/<rr//'V Characters. Female. Body exceedingly slender, narrow linear 

 in form, with the posterior division fully as long as the anterior. Last caudal 

 segment about the length of the preceding one. Caudal mini unusually much 

 produced, being about 3 times as long as they are broad, and slightly tapered 

 distally, apical seta- much elongated. Anterior antennae very slender, considerably 

 exceeding in length the cephalic segment, and clothed in their outer part with 

 exceedingly long setae, 3rd and 4th joints of about equal length, terminal part 

 scarcely longer than those 2 joints combined. Posterior antennae with the outer 

 ramus less narrow than in the other species. 1st pair of legs moderately slender, 

 outer ramus somewhat exceeding half the length of the inner, terminal joint of 

 the latter narrow linear, fully 3 times as long as the very small 2nd joint, both 

 together a little shorter than the 1st. Natatory legs slender, with the setae some- 

 what reduced in number. Last pair of legs with the distal joint very narrow, 

 sublinear in form, densely ciliated along the outer edge and the proximal part 

 of the inner, apical seta very slender and elongated, inner expansion of proximal 

 joint comparatively short, with 4 marginal setae. 



Colour not vet ascertained. 



tf 



Length of adult female 0.53 mm. 



It'i'iiHii-/.-*.- By the very slender form of the body, the elongated anterior 

 antenna' and the unusually much produced caudal rami, this form exhibits a per- 

 plexing similarity to a species described by Mr. A. Scott under the name of 

 AiiK'irn iii'iinlis. and indeed at first I believed both to be identical. On a closer 

 examination of the specimens. I have houever found some very striking differences 

 in the structure of the appendages, which seem to forbid such an identification. 



Thus the shape of the last pair of leus is totally different, and also the mutual 

 relation in length of the articulations in the anterior antenna' appears to be 

 very unlike. 



