REPOET ON THE AMPHIPODA. 853 



Zaddach supposes his species to be the first fossil Amphipod discovered, since, he says, the genua 

 Gampsonyx Jord. from the carboniferous period, which Bronn mentions in his Lethaea 

 geognostica, 1856, is remote from the present Amphipods, and represents a special order of 

 Crustaceans intermediate between Amphipods, Stomatopods and Decapods, or rather 

 antecedent to them all and belonging to a time when their several characters were not yet 

 separated. He is apparently unaware of the Permian fossil, called Palxocrangon prohle- 

 maticus by Schauroth in 1854, and Prosoponisciis prohlematicus by Kirkby in 1857. 



After a careful and detailed description of the fossil, Zaddach establishes for its reception a new 

 genus, PaJsnogammcmis, which he thus defines :— " Caput altius quam longius. Antenn» 

 et superiores et inferiores vahdse, scapis triarticulatis, longitudine subaequalibus, illee flagello 

 appendiculari ornatse. Epimera longa, duo anteriora angustissiraa, primo cingulo dorsali 

 subjecta, quartum maximum, apice diiplo latins quam basi. Postabdominis segmenta 

 anteriora propriis laminis lateralibus instructa. Pedes quarti paris infirmi, ad ambulandiim 

 apti, quinti et sexti paris coxis permagnis in laminas ovales mutatis, ceteris articulis 

 gracilibus, unguibus minimis reotis." For this genus he would find a place among the 

 genera Gammarus, Pontoporeia and Tulitrus. In 1878, however, he recognises that the 

 characters on which he had relied for separating it from Gammarus were probably only due 

 to the accidental condition of the specimen. He speaks of the peduncles of the lower 

 antennae as triarticulate, but they are from his figures clearly of the ordinary structure, 

 though the composite basal joint is not visible. The amber being found on the coast of 

 Samland, he names the species Palseogainmanis samhiensis, with this definition : — " antennis 

 superioribus inferiores longitudine superantibus, inferiorum flagello ex octo articulis com- 

 posito, segmenti undecimi et duodecimi margine dorsali spinis obsito, pedibus spuriis 

 longitudine sequalibus, appendicibus in abdominis apice nuUis." The absence of the 

 terminal appendages, as he afterwards noticed, should not have been included in the 

 specific character, that being almost certainly due only to the defectiveness of the specimen. 



To the question how this broken Amphipod got into the amber, the answer is suggested that the 

 amber-producing woods probably came down in former ages close to the sea-shore, and that 

 the creature with the sand attached to it may there have been introduced into a mass of 

 resin. In 1878, he says with regard to it, " die Uebereinstimraung zwischen der tertiaren 

 Art und einer jetzt lebendeu liisst sich nicht nachweisen, aber wahrscheinlich ist jene den 

 Arten Gammarus marinus, locusta, EdwarsLi sehr ahnlich gewesen. Der Stammbaum 

 unseres gemeinen Flohkrebses reicht also bis in jene langst vergangene Zeit hinauf, in der 

 sich die oligocanen Schichten ablagerten." The fresh-water Gammarus pulex might well 

 have been added to the list of species compared. 



1865. Bate, C. Spence. 



Crustacea. The Eecord of Zoological Literature. 1864. Volume First. 

 London, MDCCCLXV. pp. 257-311. Amphipoda, pp. 287-289. 



Grube's Nicea istrica is considered identical with Kicea prevostii, M.-Edw. Anonyx filigei; 

 Stimpson, is said to be closely allied to Lysianassa longicornis, Lucas, " or L. chausica 

 (Spence Bate), not Alihrotus chausicus (Milne-Edwards)." "The female of the genus 

 Gammarella approximates so nearly in form to Crangonyx, only having the eye coloured 

 with black pigment, that we have little doubt," Spence Bate says, " of the near relationship 

 of Professor Grube's Gammarus recurvus to Gammarella normani, which is probably the 

 female of G. brevicaudata." IjMmedia miiltispinis, Grube, which Grube himself likens to 

 fylnmecUa nodosa, Dana, shows, in Spence Bate's opinion, "a closer approximation to 

 /. eblanx, the dorsal teeth being less strong (probably a sexual distinction)." The difi'erence 



(ZOOL. CHALL. EXP.^FART LXV[I. — 1887.) Xxx 45 



