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



characteristic that the three lowest joints of the maxilUpeds are expanded, since alike in 

 Talitrus, Orehestia and Talorchestia it is not the first but the second joint of the palp that 

 has an expansion, nor is that one of such a laminar form as to be properly comparable with 

 the plates attached to the two joints below the palp. The remark that the palp is wanting 

 to the first maxillae also requires qualification, since in Talitnis locusta, for example, one is 

 present though rudimentary in size. 



In describing Talitnis locusta (Taf. 1) Zaddaoh affirms that there is no trace of a mandibular 

 palp ; he says that the function of the mandibular spine-row is obviously to pass on the 

 morsels bitten oif by the cutting-edge to the molar tubercle. What is commonly called the 

 under lip should, he thinks, be called the tongue, both from its function and from its 

 answering morphologically to the tongue of many insects. He considers that Linna3us in 

 the description of his Cancer locusta in the Fauna suecica could not have intended any other 

 species of Amphipod than this. 



In describing the family Gammaridse, Zaddach maintains that the peduncle of the lower antennse 

 has but four joints, not admitting the composite character of what he caUs the first joint. In 

 the description of Gammarus locusta (Taf. 2) he points out that young specimens (Taf. 3) 

 differ from the adults in the size and shape of the eyes, in the number of the joints of the 

 antennary flagella, in the rami of the third uropods, and in the telson. He argues that 

 Linnaeus in the Fauna suecica, No. 204] and No. 2042, by Cancer pulex, which gnaws the 

 fishing-nets, meant only Gammarus locusta, and by Cancer locusta meant only Talitrus 

 locusta, since that alone by its leaping, its powerful head and long antennae, was fit for 

 comparison vpith a grasshopper or locust. At the same time he considers the name 

 Gammarus locusta too firmly established for alteration. He here recognises that the 

 Amphipod in amber, Palaeogammarus sambiensis, which he described in 1864, may belong to 

 the genus Gammarus, or come very near it. 



In describing Melita 2Mlmata (Mont.) Leach, (Taf. 4), Zaddach mentions that the side-plate of 

 the sixth perseon-segment in the female, and not as Boeck states in the male, is prolonged 

 downwards at the front angle and bent upwards into a blunt hook, destined, he thinks, to 

 provide the large claw of the male with a holdfast. (Bruzelius had already, in 1859, 

 rightly ascribed the peculiarity in these side-plates to the female.) Amphitoe iwrvegiea, 

 Rathke, he does not consider distinct from Calliope Ixviuscula (Kr0yer) Bate, which he 

 figures (Taf. 5) and describes. 



It may be noticed that in this paper Zaddach accepts the name Protomedeia pilosa for the species 

 which he himself in 1844 named Leptocheirus pilosus, but Boeck maintains that Leptocheirus, 

 Zaddach, is a genus quite distinct from Protomedeia, Kr0yer. 



1879. Brandt, A. 



Von den armenischen Alpenseen. Zoologischer Anzeiger. 11. Jalirgang. 1879. 

 p. 525. 



In a letter to the editor, dated from Dorf Elenowka am Goktscbai, den 26. Juli 1879, 

 Dr. Alexander Brandt reports that in the Goktschai there were swarms of Gammarids, 

 especially on the shore. Those discovered were very uniform, corresponding in size and 

 habit to Gammarus index. Individuals brought up from a depth of 34 fathoms showed a 

 brighter colouring than those from the upper waters. He remarks that their eyes are not 

 dark or continuously pigmented, but offer only lighter pigment-flakes of a roundish stellate 

 form, so that at first sight he could fancy them destitute of eyes. Have we, he asks, by 

 any chance here to do with a blind variety in statu nascenti 1 



