Colour not yet ascertained. 



Length of adult female 0.56 mm. 



Remark*. This species, though closely allied to the 2 preceding ones, is 

 at once distinguished by its more robust body, the acutely produced rostral plate, 

 the structure of the caudal rami, and more particularly by the unusually strong 

 development of the middle apical seta. 



Occurrence. A few female specimens of this form were found in samples 

 taken off the south coast of Norway, some at Flekker0, some at Farsund, from 

 moderate depths. 



Fam. 14. Cletodidae. 



Characters. General habitus somewhat resembling that in the Laophontidce, 

 the segments being, as a rule, sharply marked off from each other, giving the body 

 a more or less scalariform appearance. Cephalic segment generally produced in 

 front to a lamellar projection, which however is not defined at the base by any 

 suture. Genital segment in female distinctly subdivided in the middle. Anterior 

 antennae with the number of articulations reduced; those in male strongly hinged. 

 Posterior antennae with the outer ramus small or quite rudimentary. Oral parts 

 on the whole resembling in structure those in the Laophontidcr. Posterior max- 

 illipeds, however, less powerfully developed. 1st pair of legs scarcely larger than 

 the succeeding ones, and not prehensile, outer ramus 3-articulate, inner generally 

 biarticulate and shorter than the outer. The 3 succeeding pairs of legs with the 

 number of natatory setoe generally much reduced, inner ramus always much shorter 

 than the outer, and never composed of more than 2 joints. Last pair of legs, as 

 a rule, less conspicuously foliaceous than in the Laophontidce. Ovisac single, or 

 in some cases double. 



Remarks. In this family I propose to include a number of genera, which 

 show, as regards both the outward appearance of the species and their habits, an 

 evident resemblance to the Laophontidae, and yet differ materially in the structure 

 of the 1st pair of legs. These are not prehensile, and are generally smaller than 

 the succeeding pairs, from which they do not in most cases differ materially, thus 

 deserving, like those pairs, the name of natatory legs. In this respect this family 

 was more properly entitled to be referred to the sub-section of the Chirognata 

 proposed in the Introduction to this works with the name C. pleopoda, as opposed 



