1>Y< DA 



much l( ■■■ ii the gland ducts (ductus glandarii), reall) found in his original specimen. 



ires it has to be pointed out that aeithei in fig. i a noi in Kg i b of Kroyer 

 helifori show an) sign oi articulation, and that only in the middle of the si 

 lit swelling is found. Further it must also be noticed that, while in the text, Lc p. i"<>. 

 tmliiial relation between the fourth, fith, and sixth joints of the ambulatory ' 

 nd 51, this ratio is in Eg. 1 1 .1- _>-, _>-, and 24. 



ng to what has been stated here, I think that Semper, who has nothing but the re- 



ition 1>\ Kroyer to rel) on, lias been very bold in referring Phoxichil. fluminense to the genus 



. I.c. p. 282. Neither do I think that Bohm lias been justified in referring some Pycnogonids, 



although the) have been taken at the coasts of South America, to the Phoxichil. fluminense of Kroj er, 



at the sanic time referring this, species to Pallent Johnst The species described and drawn under 



this appellation l>> Bohm, may as well be a genuine Pattern Wils., with the scape of the chelifori 



undivided, and no gland duct on the ambulator) legs of the male; and even it Bohm, contrary to 



the description of Kroyer, might regard Phoxichil. fluminense as a Pallene, the ratio between the 



joints of the ambulator) legs is so different from the statements of kroyer (whether regarding his 



his figures), and the presence or absence of feathery bristles is so important a feature, that 



lit to have hesitated very much in identifying the species. Hock draws and describi 

 il. fluminense Kr. that no doubt belongs to the genus Pallenopsis Wils., and is nearly related 

 'uminense, but the description is insufficient, and the figures, especially that of the oculiferous 

 tubercle, fig. 2, so unlike the real Pall, fluminensis, that very possibly it may be another species. 



Wilson, I.e. ]). 250, refers as well the species of Kroyer as that of Bohm to his new genus 



Pall without, as it seems, to be quite clear of the uncertainty, but nevertheless I suppose that 



his genus also comprises Phox. fluminense, although this latter in the one rather essential point that 



Wilson is regarded as the chief point, that is to say, the construction of the scap< of the chelifori, 



i from the characteristics of the new genus. The description and figures of Schimkewitsch 



like those of Mock, insufficient, and especially the highly developed bristles, fig. 28 and 29, might 



indicate another species. 



ording to the preceding, as well Semper as Bohm and Wilson seem to have ref< 



the . 'uminensi of Kroyer correctly to the genera known and acknowledged by them, although 



none of them have seen the original specimen of Kroyer, and nothwithstanding the fact, that the 



itation by Kroyer is not only incomplete, but even incorrect in several, and in some of the 



.ential, points. On the contrary I think the species of Bohm to be different from that of 



Kn nd likewise I think it very uncertain that Hoek and Schimkewitsch have had the 



II I mi. Ascorhynchidae. 



minus manifeste in segmenta partitum. 

 • 1 1 111 tumiduni, plus vel minus Qexibile. 



