NO. 3 BARNARD: THE PHOXOCEPHALIDAE 315 



The 4.5 mm female of Cat. No. 3468 is quite aberrant, lacking 

 eyes, having a shortened tooth of the third pleonal epimeron, lacking 

 distal spines of the rami of uropods 1 and 2 and having small differences 

 in the configuration of peraeopod 5. 



Distribution. — Magellanic Archipelago; Falkland Islands. Depth, 

 3-150 fms. 



Proharpinia hurleyi J. L. Barnard 



(Plate 57) 



Harpinia obtusifrons, Chilton 1909: 619 (in part); Stephensen 1927: 



306-307, fig. 6 (not Stebbing 1888). 

 Heterophoxus stephenseni, Hurley 1954: 589-593, figs. 29-67 (not 



Schellenberg 1931). 

 Proharpinia hurleyi J. L. Barnard 1958: 149. 



Diagnosis. — Tooth of third pleonal epimeron medium in length 

 or short; article 2 of peraeopod 5 with small posterior serrations; 

 telson with blunt spinose apices; eyes rectangular; uropod 1, outer 

 ramus shortened. 



Holotype.— Slide P. 31, female, from Hurley 1954: 593. 



Type locality. — Sandbank, Quarantine Island, Otago Harbour, 

 N.Z., 19/1/53, coll. D. E. Hurley, in his personal collections. 



Material examined. — (1) Portobello Marine Biological Station, 

 Otago Harbour, New Zealand, 24/5/54, in blackish sandy mud, 3 

 females, courtesy of Dr. D. E. Hurley; (2) through the courtesy of 

 Prof. E. Percival, Canterbury University College, Christchurch, N.Z., 

 I have examined some of Dr. Chilton's material of "Harpinia obtusi- 

 frons." The material was on stained slides, no wet material being 

 extant. One series of three slides of one dissected specimen labeled as 

 follows "female sign, Al, A2, A3, Harpinia obtusifrons Steb. Perse- 

 verance Hr. Campbell Is. xi. 07 Charles Chilton" and penciled 11-18, 

 11-19, 11-20, corresponds to the material figured by Hurley 1954. 

 Another whole mount slide with the same labeling except penciled 

 11-17 corresponds also, except that it, a male, has a short third pleonal 

 tooth similar to that figured by Stephensen 1927. 



Remarks. — From Stephensen's figures, Hurley's figures and Chil- 

 ton's slides it is apparent that all three belong to a species different 

 from H. stephenseni Schellenberg, despite Schellenberg's inclusion of 

 Chilton's and Stephensen's references with H. stephenseni. Detailed 

 differences are noted by J. L. Barnard (1958). 



