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



" Nicea Prevostii (H. Milne-Edw.)," is given, with " Aniphithoe Prevostii," M.-Edw., and " Nicea 

 Macronyx," Heller, for its synonyms. 



Of Liljehorgia pallida," Sp. Bate, lie confirms Sp. Bate's suspicion, that the telson is not only 

 cleft, but double. 



Of Microdeutopus anomalus (Rathke), he thinks it probable that it is the female of Microdeutopux 

 gryllofaJpa. He mentions Eurijstheus erythropidhalmus ; Iphimedia ohesa, Rathke; 

 Ampelisca helliana, Sp. Bate ; Leucotlwe denticulata, Costa ; Leucoilioe artieulosa, 

 Montagu ; Bloera truncafipes, Spinola, with which he thinks Heller's Micra scissimana 

 identical ; Moera integrimana. Heller ; Lysianassa audouiniana, Sp. Bate ; Lysianassa 

 spinicornis, Costa ; and alludes to unnamed species in various other genera of Amphipods, 

 which may be found in tlie gulf. 



1875. Grimm, Oscar. 



Briefliche Mittlieiluno-en an C. Th. v. Siebold iiber eine zoolooische Unter- 

 sucliungs-Expeditioii nach dem Kaspiselien Meere. Zeitselirift fur wiss. Zool. 

 25 Baud. Leipzig. 1875. pp. 323-326. 



He collected 3.50 specimens of Gammarids, belonging to four or live species, some of them 

 colossal forms. 



1875. Heller, Camil. 



Die Crustaceen, Pycnogonideu und Tunicateu der K. K. Osterr-Ungar. Nordpol- 

 Expedition. Mit fiinf Tafelu. Vorgelegt iu der Sitzung am 19 Juli 1875. The 

 plates are inscribed " Denkschriften d. k. Akad. d. W. matli. uaturw. CI. II. Abth. 

 XXXVI. Bd. 1875." The Imck of the title page says " Besouders abgedruckt aus 

 dem XXXV. Bande der Denkschriften," etc. 



A fidl description and figures are given of the new species Cleijjpides (ptadricuspis and 

 Amathillopsis spinigera. Some of the differences pointed out between Cleippides quad.ri- 

 cugpAs and Amntlionotus (CJeippides) triruspis, Krtiyer, may be due to age or accident; it 

 is highly improbable, for example, that the mandible in the one should possess an accessory 

 cutting-plate and a spine-row, and the other be without them. These would rather be 

 generic differences, of which there does not seem to be any question. 



The new genus Amafhilloptfi^ has its definition included in the Latin descrijjtion of the 

 species : — 



"Corpus compressum, dorso carmato, carina segmentornm in spinas retrover.sas exeunti ; 

 epimeris parvis, rigidis, extrorsum flexis. Antennce superiores inferioribus longiores, 

 pedunculo elongate, flagello appendicular! brevi. Mandibulfe robustse, in apice deutata;, 

 processu accessorio etiam dentato, palpo triarticulato, articulo tertio breviore quam secundo. 

 Maxillae primi paris lamina interiore lata, longa, in margine anteriore satis sex plumosis 

 instructa. Pedes maxillares lamina exteriore brevi, vix ad dimidium articulum palpi 

 secundum elongatum porrecta. Pedes 1"" et S*"' paris ferme eadem forma, subcheliformes, 

 non pervalidi; articulo quarto et quinto longitudine fere sequahbus, oarpo in angulo 

 inferiore posteriore iu processum parvum producto, manu ovali in margine interiore setis et 

 spinis tenuibus instructa. Pedes trium parium ultimorum articulo jirimo sat angusto, 

 pedes septimi paris iisdem parium duorum prajcedentium breviores. Caput rostro frontali 



