270 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER. 



In his notes Dana recognizes Leptomera, Latr., as a synonym of Proto, Leach. He remarks, 

 p. 830, " it is possible that the Podocerus Leachii (Krdyer), should form a distinct genus, 

 as the animal lived in a tube like a Cerapus." At p. 832, he says, " Glauconome of 

 Krciyer lias the hands and antenna and apparently the other characters of Unciola. Say 

 describes the hands of the second pair in Unciola as adactyle ; but they still are probably 

 like those of Glauconome." In a note to Anoni/x, Krtiyer, he explains that he omits the 

 genus Epiiippiphora, White, from his synopsis, on account of its insufficient description. 

 As to " Lcptocliirus ^«7osms, " Zaddach, he asks, p. 910, "May the form be female only?" 

 In a note on " IpJmnedia, Rathke, D.," he says, " DexamiTie of Leach, may perhaps be 

 inchided here," and " the genus Hyale of H. Rathke," he says, " contains no characters in 

 its description by this author, which do not ajjply equally well to species of Iphimedia." 

 " Amphithoe, Leach, D.," he says, " includes Plierusa of Leach." In a note on " Gammarus, 

 Fabr., D.," he mentions Amathia, Rathke, and Eusirti^, Kriiyer, but does not give them a 

 place in the synopsis. The note on Lipidacfi/lis, Say, remarks, " here falls Bellia of C. 

 Sponce Bate." In the addenda, p. 1595, he observes, "Page 908: — Callisoma, Costa 

 (loc. cit.), appears to be identical with Lysianassa"; "Page 910. — Niphargus is the name 

 of a new genus near Gammarus, proposed by SchiiMte"; "Page 913. The genus Ldloria 

 (L. longitarsis) of Nicolet (loc. cit., PI. 2, f. 8), is between the Gammarid* and Corophidaj, 

 and appears to be identical with Aora of Kriiyer, which was also from Valparaiso." 



1852. LlLJEBORG, WiLHELM. 



Hafs-Crustaceer vid Kullaberg. Crustacea marina ad KuUaberg in Scania 

 mense Septembris 1851 observata. Ofversigt af Kongl. Vetenskaj)s-Akademiens 

 Forhandlingar. Arg. 9. 1852. No. 1 & 2. (Nionde Argangen. 1852. Stockhohii, 

 1853). pp. 1-13. 



Among the Crustacea of this district already noticed by others, Liljeborg mentions " Gapirella 



linearis, Latr., Orsted, De regionibus marinis, p. 73." He observes that in Ampelisca 



macrocephala as in " Ampelisca Gaimardi Krbyer (Voy. en Scandinavie etc. t. 23, f. 1. a, a) " 



there are four eyes instead of the two to which the Amphipoda had hitherto been limited. 



In these four he found no trace of facets, or cones, and concludes therefore that they are 



simple, as given in the original definition of the genus with a query. In the species which 



he describes as Ampelisra Eschricldi? Krciy., he found only two eyes, but with creatures 



that burrow in the mud at considerable depths, he thought the eyes too unimportant to 



justify a generic distinction depending on their number. However, in 1855, as Haploops 



luhicola, this species became the type of his new genus Haploops. Goiis subsequently 



discovered that Haploops agreed with Ainpdisra in having four eyes. In specimens 



preserved in spirits the lower pair have a tendency to disappear. Liljeborg was the less 



inclined to lay stress upon the eyes from noticing that in certain Amphipoda which live at 



great depths, they are entirely wanting, "as, e.g., in the genus Sfe/jocephalus, Krijyer, and 



probably Pardalisca and CEdiceros Kr." As the last of these examples shows, it must not 



be too easily taken for granted that eyes are wanting, because they have not been detected, 



in species of Amphipoda, though Liljeborg's conclusion is justified that the possession of 



two eyes, given by Milne-Edwards as a general character for the order, cannot be attributed 



to it without reserve. 



In the Latin description of " Ampelisca Eschrichti ? Kroy.," corresponding as above-mentioned 



to Hapiloops iuhicola, is included a description of the male, which refers to a separate species, 



called in 1855 Haploops rarinuta. He here remarks that Orsted, " (Naturhist. Tidsskr. 



