267 



Remarks. This form was first briefly described by Glaus as Cleta lamel- 

 lifera, and subsequently more closely examined by Prof. Brady, who referred it to 

 the genus Laophonte of Philippi. It is an easily recognisable species, which cannot 

 be confounded with any of the other Laopliontidw. 



Occurrence. I have only met with this form in a single locality, viz., at 

 Hval0r, in the outer part of the Christiania Fjord, where some few female spe- 

 cimens were taken from a depth of about 6 fathoms, muddy bottom. 



Distribution. Mediterranean (Glaus), British Isles (Brady,), coast of 

 France (Canu). 



Gen. 54. AsellOpSlS, Brady, 1873. 



Generic Characters. Body pronouncedly depressed, with all the segments 

 lamellarly expanded laterally. Rostral projection triangular, not defined behind 

 by any suture. Caudal rami lamelliform, with the apical setse rudimentary. An- 

 terior antennae in female with the number of joints reduced; those of male strongly 

 hinged. Posterior antennae about as in Laophonte. Oral parts also of a somewhat 

 similar structure. 1st pair of legs with the outer ramus small, biarticulate, prox- 

 imal joint the larger; inner ramus strong, resembling in structure that in Laophonte. 

 Natatory legs well developed, with the full number of setae, outer ramus coarsely 

 spinulose outside; inner ramus of 3rd pair in male transformed in the usual man- 

 ner. Last pair of legs in female with both joints lamellar and provided with 

 comparatively short setse; those in male without any expansion inside the prox- 

 imal joint. 



Remarks. This genus was established in the year 1873 by Prof. Brady, 

 to include a species, A. hispida, which, as regarded its external appearance, differed 

 very markedly from the other Laophontidce, as indicated by the generic name. 

 Subsequently, however, he withdrew this genus, believing that the form upon which 

 it was founded did not differ sufficiently in its anatomical details from Laophonte. 

 As of recent years several genera closely related to that genus have been estab- 

 lished and comprised within a particular family, Laophontidce, I think that the 

 present genus may also be acceptable, the more so as, in addition to the typical 

 form, there is another well-defined species, which is evidently referable to that 

 genus, viz., the form recently described by Th. Scott as Laophonte intermedia. 

 In the structure of the caudal rami and the rudimentary condition of their apical 

 setae, the present genus agrees with Laophontopsis j but the form of the body is 

 very different, and there are also several differences to be found in the structural 

 details, which preclude a combination of these 2 genera. 



