362 Transactions. 



as M. f estiva Chilton. Of this species there were only two specimens, a 

 male and a female, but fortunately the male still bears one of the third 

 uropods, and this has the inner branch quite short and the outer one long, 

 thus showing the form typical of the genus Melita ; in other points also 

 the species agrees well with the characters of Melita, and must be placed 

 in that genus. It is therefore quite different from Ceradocvs nihromacu- 

 latus (Stimpson). The peculiar structure of the second gnathopod is quite 

 consistent with Melita, for in that genus the second gnathopod in the 

 male is usually large, and differs greatly from that of the female, assuming 

 in several species very peculiar and even bizarre forms, as, for example, 

 in Melita fresnelii Aud. 



My Auckland specimens of M. festiva difEer slightly from the Sydney 

 specimens which have the appendages, and especially the second gnatho- 

 pod, more setose ; the resemblance in other respects, however, is so great 

 that I have no hesitation in considering them as the same species. In 

 another Amphipod, Elasmopus suhcarinatus (Haswell), I have noted that 

 some of the Australian specimens are more setose than the New Zealand 

 ones. 



Maera hamigera Haswell, with which, as Stebbing has pointed out, 

 M. festiva shows some agreement, has the rami of the third uropods long 

 and equal, and is a true Maera, and therefore quite distinct. Moreover, 

 although the second gnathopods show considerable resemblance to those of 

 M. festiva, they differ in being unequal, and in the larger one the finger, 

 though short, has not the peculiar truncate end that it has in M. festiva. 

 Moera hamigera has been recorded by Walker (1909, p. 335) from Suez and 

 from Khor Dongola ; and both he and Stebbing, who examined specimens 

 from the " Thetis " Expedition (1910a, p. 600), have added to and amended 

 the original description given by Haswell. 



In the absence of any knowledge of its third uropods it is impossible 

 to come to any conclusion as to the position of Elasmopus duhius Walker. 

 The second gnathopods appear to show as much resemblance to the larger 

 one of M. hamigera as to those of M. festiva, but in the absence of any 

 note to the contrary it is to be presumed that those of the right and left 

 sides are equal. 



Maera viridis Haswell. Figs. 3 and 4. 



Moera viridis Haswell, 1879, p. 333, pi. 21, fig. 1. Moera incerta 

 Chilton, 1883, p. 83, pi. 3, fig. 3. Elasmopus viridis Stebbing, 

 1906, p. 445, and 1910a, p. 643 ; Chevreux, 1908, p. 482 ; 

 Chilton, 1912, p. 131. 



The species Maera viridis was described in 1879 by Professor W. A. 

 Haswell from specimens collected at Clark Island, Port Jackson. He 

 added to his description by pointing out the differences between this 

 species and M. truncatipes (Spinola), M. quadrimanus Dana, and M. ramsayi 

 Haswell. 



In 1883 I described from specimens obtained at Lyttelton Harbour a 

 species Maera incerta, pointing out that it closely resembled M. viridis 

 Haswell and the other species mentioned by Haswell, but differed from 

 all in the form of the second pair of gnathopods, in this respect closely 

 resembUng M. hlancJiardi Spence Bate. 



Both the species M. viridis and M. incerta were included with other;, 

 under M. truncatipes by Delia Valle in 1893. 



