318 ALLAN HANCOCK PACIFIC EXPEDITIONS VOL. 18 



Louis, Falkland Islands (8) ; 3097, same locality (26) ; 3128, Ushuaia 

 (6) ; all originally reported by Schellenberg 1931. 



Remarks. — After examining Schellenberg's material of this species 

 and that of Proharpinia antipoda, I reached the conclusion that the two 

 species were congeneric, although Schellenberg had them separated into 

 different genera in his 1931 paper. Before obtaining Schellenberg's 

 species it was apparent to me that his genus Proharpinia was indistinct 

 from Heterophoxus Shoemaker, because his generic diagnosis fitted that 

 of Heterophoxus. Although he called attention to a feature of similarity 

 he failed to distinguish the two genera. Especially confusing was the 

 fact that Schellenberg described the species Heterophoxus stephenseni 

 which appeared similar in all generic features to Proharpinia antipoda. 

 By restricting to the genus Proharpinia those species lacking an antennal 

 ensiform process the removal of H. stephenseni to Proharpinia was 

 effected (J. L. Barnard 1958). 



When Schellenberg described H. stephenseni he included Harpinia 

 obtusifrons of Chilton 1909 and Stephensen 1927 (not Stebbing 1888) 

 as references. However, these citations should be removed to Prohar- 

 pinia hurleyi J. L. Barnard (1958). 



Distribution. — South America at Ushuaia; Falkland Islands. Depth, 

 2-18 meters. 



Genus Heterophoxus Shoemaker 



Heterophoxus Shoemaker 1925: 22. 



Diagnosis. — Article 2 of peraeopod 3 slender; eyes present; second 

 article of second antenna bears ensiform process; fourth palp article of 

 maxilliped short, with one or more long terminal setae; second article 

 of third uropodal outer ramus minute; first maxillary palp with 2 

 articles. 



Type species. — Heterophoxus pennatus Shoemaker 1925 (= Har- 

 pinia oculata Holmes 1908). 



Remarks. — All of the species which I have assembled in this genus 

 agree in not having a large process at the lower antennal corner of 

 the head such as is seen in the genus Proharpinia. The ensiform process 

 of the second antenna is also diagnostic of Heterophoxus. The smallriess 

 of the second article of the third uropodal outer ramus is rare for the 

 family (see Pseud harpinia) ; K. H. Barnard 1932 mentions that in H. 

 videns the second article is absent in the male. 



