28 Annals of the South African Museum. 



Dr. de Man now assigns to this family the genera Polycheles, 

 Heller, 18G2, Willemoesia, Grote, 1873, Eryoneicvs, Bate, 1882, 

 Stereomasfis, Bate, 1888, and gives lists of all the species to 

 be apportioned to these genera respectively. He considers that 

 Alcock was right in distinguishing the two groups which he 

 named Polycheles and Pentacheles, but that his Polycheles 

 should properly be identified with Bate's Stereomastis and that 

 Pentacheles, Bate, 1878, should lapse as a synonym of Heller's 

 Polycheles. 



GEN. POLYCHELES, Heller. 



1862. Polycheles, Heller, Sitz. K. Akad. Wiss. Wien, vol. 45, p. 389. 

 1912. (part), Kemp and Sewell, Kecords Indian Mus., 



vol. 7, pt. 1, no. 2, p. 23. 

 1914. Selbie, Fisheries, Ireland, Sci. Invest., pt. 1, 



p. 9. 

 1916. de Man, Siboga Exp., vol. 39cr, p. 1. 



As characters for the genus Dr. de Man proposes the follow- 

 ing : The thoracic legs, except the last pair, provided with 

 epipods, normal but varying in length ; the epipod of the third 

 maxillipeds also of variable size, but, so far as known, rudi- 

 mentary only in P. tanneri, Faxon ; the lateral borders of the 

 cai'apace commonly armed with more than twenty spines, except 

 in the small and probably juvenile form, P. obscures (Bate) ; 

 the median dorsal cariua of the carapace usually double, granu- 

 lated, rarely nodulated, and in most cases presenting no definite 

 small number of spines, being often traversed by bead-like 

 tubercles or granulations or covered with croAvded spinules ; 

 the first abdominal terguin, finally, is probably never armed 

 with the two small spines at and near the outer ends of the 

 anterior border, that generally occur in the species of Stereo- 

 mastis. 



POLYCHELES DEMANI, n. sp. 

 Plate XCII. 



1908. Polycheles beaimwntii (?), Stebbing, Ann. S. Afr. Mus., vol. 6, 



pt. 1, p. 25. 

 1910. (?), Stebbing, Ann. S. Afr. Mus., vol. 6, 



pt. 4, p. 377. 



In naming this species after my friend Dr. de Man I now 

 accept the opinion expressed in his latest very valuable work, 



