Chilton. — Some Australian and Neiv Zealand Gammaridae. 361 



Stimpson, which he described as a species with varying forms of the second 

 guathopods. He added, " Moera festiva Chilton also belongs to this very 

 variable species." In M. ruhromacidata the third uropoda are large, with 

 both rami equally developed, so that in this character the species agrees 

 with the generic characters of Maera and difJers from Melita. The dactyl of 

 the second gnathopod of the male of Moera festiva differed so much from 

 those of the other forms referred by Haswell to M. rubromaculata that I felt 

 very doubtful of the correctness of referring M. festiva also to this species, 

 but at that time I had no further specimens or other means of definitely 

 Settling the question. 



j/^ p/andurfi 



Fig. 2. — Melita festiva. pi. 3, lower portion of third segment of pleon ; 

 pi. and urp, terminal portion of pleon, with uropoda. 



In 1893 Delia Valle (1893, p. 720) placed Moera ruhromacidata Stimp- 

 son under the genus Ceradocus A. Costa, and so did Stebbing in 1899. 

 Accordingly in "Das Tierreich Amphipoda," Stebbing (1906, p. 430) gave 

 the species as Ceradocus ruhromaculatus (Stimpson), and followed Haswell 

 in considering Moera ramsayi Haswell, M. spinosa Haswell, and M. festiva 

 Chilton as synonyms. More recently, however (1910a, p. 643), he says, 

 " The position of all three should rather be regarded as still doubtful. 

 M. festiva shows agreement with Haswell's M. hamigera." 



Meanwhile Mr. Walker (1904, p. 276) had described from Ceylon an 

 Amphipod which he )iamed Elasmopifs duhius, and had drawn attention 

 to the resemblance between the second gnathopod of his species and that 

 of M. festiva, saying, " This species is certainly very near Moera festiva 

 Chilton." As, however, the description of that species differed somewhat 

 from his specimens, he thought it better to consider them as distinct, 

 adding, " It is unfortunate that in both cases the third uropods, so im- 

 portant in this family, should be wanting." The loss of these appendages 

 in Elasuiopus flxbius raises some doubt as to the correctness of the genus 

 to which the species was assigned by Walker, as in my experience the 

 third uropods in Elasmopus are usually not much longer than the first and 

 second, and are not so readily lost as in species of Maera and Melita. 



Recently I have been going over and naming an extensive collection 

 of Crustacea gathered by Mr. W. R. B. Oliver, and in one small tube of 

 specimens collected under stones on Rangitoto Reef, Auckland Harbour, I 

 found three species of Gammarids — viz., Ceradocus ruhromacidatiis (Stimp- 

 son), Maera viridis Haswell, and another that is without doubt the same 



