REPORT ON THE AMPHIPODA. 1509 



Lower Lip. — The front lobes narrow, not quite acute, the lip widened below, not pro- 

 duced into mandibular processes. 



First Maxillae. — The distal margin forming two processes, of which the inner is the 

 longer ; the inner margin indented and carrying a spinule a little below the apical process. 



Second Maxillae. — These appear to reach somewhat beyond the first maxillae and to 

 have the outer margin produced iuto a small process, while the inner margin apically 

 bulges inwards. 



Maxillipeds. — The second joint broad, the distal margin and adjacent parts of the 

 outer surface scabrous with spinules of various sizes ; the inner plate small, longer than 

 broad, the two embedded spinules planted near together some way below the distal 

 margin ; the broad outer plates covering most of the inner plate and arching over it, the 

 corrugated inner margin minutely pectinate ; little spinules are spread about on the 

 lower part of the outer surface, and a row is submarginal to the distal part of the outer 

 border. 



Length, in the position figured, nine-twentieths of an inch. 



Localities. — October 1875, South Pacific; surface. One specimen, male. 



April 28, 1876, North Atlantic; lat. 17° 47' N, long. 28° 28' W.; surface; surface 

 temperature, 72° "8. Five specimens, males. 



April 29, 1876, North Atlantic; lat. 18° 8' N, long. 30° 5' W.; surface, night; 

 surface temperature, 72°. One specimen, male. 



Remarks. — The figures, with the exception of fig. l.i. A., are taken from the Pacific 

 specimen ; it differs from the Atlantic specimens in being without pigment spots, in having 

 longer hands to the gnathopods, and in not having a minute marginal groove in the 

 upper part of the first joint of the fifth peraeopods. For these reasons I at first proposed 

 to make of this a new species under the name Pronoe immaculata, but I abstain from 

 doing so for want of opportunity to determine whether these slight differences are 

 constant, and for the further reason that, as Guerin says nothing of his species being 

 spotted, but describes it as " jaunatre," it is possible that the flecked specimens may have 

 the better claim to be treated as new. 



Genus Eupronoe, Claus, 1879. 



1879. Eupronoe, Claus, Die Gattungen und Arten der Platysceliden, pp. 23, 26. 



1886. „ Gerstaecker, Bronn's Klassen iuid Ordnungen, Bd. v. Abth. ii. p. 484. 



1887. „ Bovallius, Systematical List of Amph. Hyper., Bihang till K. Svensk. Vetensk.- 



Akad. Handl., Bd. 11, No. 16, p. 40. 

 1887. „ Claus, Die Platysceliden, pp. 48, 50. 



For the original definition of this genus, see Note on Claus, 1879 (p. 492), and for 

 the suggestion that Orio, Cocco, 1832, as limited by de Natale in 1850, may be the 



