44 



peduncle, which is ii mm. long; this flagellum is cylindrical, not at all compressed, and regularly 

 tapers to ihe extremity. The antennal peduncle reaches to the middle of the 2"'^ antennular 

 article, the flagellum is missing; the antennal scale narrows rather considerably towards the 

 apex, its greatest width (3 mm.) at the base is hardly one-third the length (10,25 mm.); the 

 straight outer margin is not curved inward distally and the distal spine distinctly projects beyond 

 the obtuse apex of the lamellar portion. Mandibular palp a little shorter than the antennal 

 peduncle; the 2"'' joint, 3,5 mm. long, is barely shorter than the i^' or proximal joint, but only 

 half as broad; the 2°'' joint shows its greatest width posteriorly and gradually narrows towards 

 the obtuse tip. 



The e.xternal maxillipeds reach just beyond the antennal scales. The i^' pair of legs 

 reach to the end of the eyes, both the 2"'^ joint and the ischium are armed at the far end 

 with a slender spine, but the merus, which is just as long as the carpus, bears a si mi 1 ar 

 spine on the middle of its lower margin; the fingers are almost twice as long as the 

 palm. The legs of the 2°*^ pair, that just extend beyond the antennal peduncles, are armed 

 with a similar, slender spine at their base, but those of the t,'''^ are unarmed. The 4"^ legs, 

 25 mm. long, reach to the distal end of second antennular article; the carpus is one-third longer 

 than the merus, the propodus half as long as the merus and one and a half as long as the 

 terminal joint. The slender filiform legs of the 5''^ pair are 40 mm. long, twice as long as the 

 carapace, rostrum included, and reach with three-fourths of their propodi beyond the antennal 

 scales ; merus, carpus, propodus and dactylus are respectively 10 mm., 11,5 mm., 11,25 mm. 

 and 1,5 mm. long. In Fig. 4 of the Challenger Report the propodus of the 5"^ legs has not 

 been figured ! In all the pereiopods the coxae carry a small, acute, conical 

 tooth anteriorly, more developed on the 4"' and 5''^ legs than on the three chelipeds. 



• The exopod of the outer maxillipeds extends along hardly more than one-third the 

 ischium, while the exopods of the legs progressively decrease in length, though very little. 



The two plates of the petasma are not yet united, their distal extremity is slightly 

 emarginate; the inner margin of the basisal joint carries a sharp, conical tooth at its far end 

 near the insertion of the petasma. The sternal ridge that unites the pleopods of the i^', 2°'^ 

 and y^ pairs carries a subacute, compressed tooth in the middle; these teeth progressively 

 decrease in size from the i^' to the T)^"^. 



The other specimen is much younger, the carapace with the rostrum being only 9 mm. 

 long, the seven teeth of the rostrum are arranged as in Fig. 4 of the Challenger Report. 



Remarks. Solenocera Ituasii Miers 1884 from Mauritius (1. c.) is certainly another 

 species, because it has no pterygostomian spine; this spine, however, is described by Spence 

 Bate, 1. c. p. 278: "There is also a spine on the hepatic region and one submarginal in 

 advance of it below". For the same reason Miss Rathbun was in the wrong when (1. c.) 

 referring a species from the Hawaiian Islands to Solenocera lucasii^ because in that species 

 there was also no branchiostegal spine. 



Halip. malhaensis Borr., only known by one female dredged in 145 fathoms off Saya 

 de Malha, is apparently closely related to Halip. Liicasü (Sp. Bate) and I should have identified 

 both species, but neither the 4"^ nor the 5"^ legs are " particularly slender" in the species from 



44 



