44 



In his account of the first post-larval stage of Upogehia 

 littoralis, Sars states that in the second antennae a five- 

 jointed peduncle and a thinner multiarticulate flagellum can 

 be distinguished. hX. the end of the third joint of the 

 peduncle, he says, there is observable an inconsiderable 

 conical process set off fi*om the joint, which seems to be the 

 last remnant of the antennary scale. In discussing the 

 second antennae of the Macrura, Spence Bate, in his 

 Challenger report says, *' One thing, however, is invariably 

 constant, that however few the joints of the peduncle may 

 appear, that which supports the scaphocerite is always the 

 second." Judging from Sars' figure (Arch. Naturv., v. 9, 

 t. 5, f. 6), I believe that the rule is not really violated in the 

 young Upogebui, and that the process is not on the third joint, 

 but on the second, just as it is shown in Heller's figure of the 

 adult Upogehia littoralis, and as it appears in Upogehia 

 capensis. Heller says that the peduncle of the second 

 antennae in this genus is composed of five joints, and gives 

 a figure indicating their arrangement. But there is this to 

 notice, that on the outer side the third joint is either not 

 visible or is completely coalesced with the fourth, although 

 on the inner side it forms a triangular lamina in alto-relief 

 and densely fringed with setae, which serve as a sort of brow 

 to the adjacent eye. 



In regard to the branchiae, various statements have been 

 made which are not all easy to reconcile with one another 

 and with the facts of the case. H. Milne-Edwards says the 

 branchiae are "en brosse," in two rows, and that there is 

 one above the second maxilliped (pate being no doubt a 

 misprint for pate-machoire), and two above the third 

 maxillipeds and four anterior trunk legs, thus reckoning 

 eleven pairs in all. But de Haan and Huxley both state that 

 the pairs of branchiae are ten in number. Moreover Huxley, 

 after explaining that the branchies en brosse of Milne- 

 Edwards may be called trichobranchiae, expressly declares 

 that in Gehia and Callianassa the gills are phyllobranchiae 

 (Proc. Zool. Soc. London for 1878, pp. 776, 782). Yet the 

 narrow filaments of these gills, in four rows, two rows on 

 each side of the midrib, would better justify the epithet 

 trichobranchiate than those which are found in the Para- 

 paguridae, a family distinguished solely by its tricho- 

 branchiate gills. As to the pair of branchiae on the second 

 maxillipeds, I am disposed to think that Milne-Edwards was 

 right, though I cannot speak positively on the point, but I 

 can say for certain that, at least in Upogehia capensis, there is 

 a single pair of branchiae pertaining to the fifth pair of trunk- 

 legs, and as they stand apart from and rather further from the 

 centre than the other branchiae, they are easily distinguished. 



