\ 



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



Monoculodes carinaius, Sp. Bate, is disunited from Monocidodes affinis of Boeck [which 

 J. S. Schneider thinks ma.y = Mo7ioculodes sHmj)S07u, Sp. Bate]; 142. Leucothoe furina, 

 Savigny (Sp. Bate), is thought to be easily distinguishable from Leucothoe spinicarpa, 

 Abildgaard, by its slenderer body, a somewhat different form of the gnathopods, and 

 difference of colouring. It may be doubted, notwithstanding, whether any or all of these 

 distinctions suffice to establish the specific difference in question. Halice grandicomis, 

 Boeck, is undoubtedly, Sars says, the male of 146. Halice ahyssi, Boeck. Bate's Am2Klisca 

 gaimardii (originally Tetromatus typicus) is stated to be undoubtedly the male of 148. 

 AmpeUsca temiicornis, Lilljeborg, not a separate species, Ampelisca ti/pica, as Boeck makes 

 it. But here neither Sars nor Boeck can be right, for the anterior part of the back, both in 

 Ampelisca tenuicornis and in Boeck's description of Ampelisca typica, is round, while in 

 Spence Bate's species " the anterior half of the animal is much more compressed than the 

 posterior, and narrowed to an angle upon the dorsal surface, the angle increasing anteriorly 

 to the extremity of the head." Hoek is probably right in adopting Norman's suggestion 

 that Ampelisca carinafa, Bruzelius, is the male of Amjxlisca xquicoiYiis, Bruzelius, but again 

 neither Norman nor Hoek can be right in uniting Ampelisca gaimardi, Sp. Bate, to 

 Ampelisca carinata, Bruzelius, for that species has the front part of the back rounded. 

 The name Ampelisca typica (Bate, non Boeck) will therefore belong to Ampelisca gaimardii 

 (Bate, non Kroyer), while Ampelisca typica, Boeck, is united to Ampelisca tenuicornis, 

 Lilljeborg. The question, however, remains, whether the specific name of TetroriiatuK 

 typicus can with propriety be retained, when the species to which it refers has been found 

 to belong to a previously established genus. 158. Corophiwn hoiielli, M. -Edwards, is 

 distinguished from Coropldum crassicorne, Bruzelius, by the rounded side-lobes of the head 

 and the far weaker form of the lower antennae both in male and female. SipJwna'cetes 

 erassicornis, Sp. Bate, under the title 160. Cerapus crassicornis, is referred without doubt 

 to the genus Cerapus, Say, as characterised by S. I. Smith. It constructs, out of particles 

 of mud, small, regularly cylindrical tubes, which it carries about with it. The species 

 referred by Boeck to Cerapus belong to Erichthonius. The females of 163. DulicMa 

 monacantlia, Metzger, are said to be very like the females of Didicliia porrecta, Sp. Bate, 

 whUe the males are clearly distinguished by the development of the side-plates of the second 

 pair into long forward-directed spine-like processes. 



1882. Streets, Thomas H. 



A Study of the Plironimidse of the North Pacific Surveying Expedition. 

 Proceedings of the United States National Museum. Vol. V. 1882. jDp. 3-9. 

 PI. I. 



Dr. Streets is of opinion that Claus combines in his description of Phronima sedentaria more 

 than one species. Phronima sedentaria itself Dr. Streets had not had any opportunity to 

 examine. He points out that to Claus is due the discovery that such and such a species 

 known in the female had a male form presenting characteristic differences. He upholds 

 Phronima atlantica, Guerin (fig. 1, la, 2), as a good species, against the researches of Claus, 

 and also Phronima j^acijica. Streets, fig. 3, 3a. In regard to the genus Phronimella, Claus, 

 he says, " Claus states that there are ' only two pairs of styliform caudal appendages.' This 

 is true of the female, but not of the male. In one of his plates, where the caudal extremity 

 of a male is given, the three pairs of styliform appendages are very clearly represented." 

 Description and figures (4, 4a, 5, 5rt) are given of Phronimella elmigata, Claus, with which 

 Dr. Streets identifies his own Anchylonyx hamatus, 1877. 



