NO. 3 BARNARD : THE PHOXOCEPHALIDAE 307 



Metaphoxus pectinatus (Walker), nomen conseroandum 



Phoxus simplex Bate 1857: 525 (fide Norman 1900, not Walker 

 1896a); Bate and Westwood 1863: 140-142, fig.; Bate 1862: 97- 

 98, pi. 16, fig. l;Boeck 1871: 135. 



Phoxus Kroyerii Bate 1857: 140 (=homonym, not Stimpson 1853). 



Phoxocephalus simplex, Caiman 1896: 748-751, pi. 32, fig. 3; Norman 

 1900: 335-336. 



Phoxocephalus pectinatus Walker 1896: 343-344, pi. 16, figs. 1-6; 



Walker 1896a: 156-157. 

 Metaphoxus pectinatus, Chevreux 1898: 577; Chevreux 1900: 33-34 



Walker 1901: 299-300, pi. 27, fig. 22; Stebbing 1906: 139-140 



Chevreux 1911: 187-188, pi. 9, figs. 19-20; Chevreux 1925: 295 



Chevreux and Fage 1925: 105-106, figs. 98, 99; Fage 1933: 203- 



207, fig. 10; Chevreux 1935: 73; Ruffo 1938: 130; Ruffo 1947: 



84; Plym. Mar. Fauna 1931: 189. 

 Metaphoxus typicus Bonnier 1896: 630-633, pi. 37, fig. 1; Chevreux 



1927:72. 

 Metaphoxus fultoni, Patience 1909: 125-130, pis. 3, 4, fig. 1 (in part, 



not Scott 1890). 



Nomenclature. — The type specimen of Phoxus simplex Bate 1857 

 has not been identified with certainty. Both Norman 1900 and Walker 

 1896a have examined the specimen and each referred it to different 

 species. Part of the difficulty appears to lie in the damaged condition of 

 the type. Despite the differences between the figures of Bate 1857 and 

 the specimen, as detailed by Walker 1896a, the gnathopods are remark- 

 ably like M. pectinatus more than they are to Phoxocephalus holbolli, 

 although Bate's figures of head and antennae are like P. holbolli. Nor- 

 man 1900 disputed Walker's conclusions and referred to M. pectinatus 

 as a junior synonym of P. simplex. No European workers have discussed 

 the point further and later synonymies have ignored the problem. Des- 

 pite my belief that P. simplex is probably a senior synonym of M. pec- 

 tinatus it is not my place to fix the name permanently. Considering the 

 long history of the use of the name M. simplex it would be wise to con- 

 serve it. 



I am unable to discern any qualitative differences between M. pec- 

 tinatus and M. typicus from the literature. Bonnier 1896 in a footnote 

 on p. 633 distinguishes his species from M. pectinatus by the broader 

 second article of peraeopod 5. Comparison of various figures shows the 

 apex of article 6 of gnathopod 1 to be slightly narrowed in M. pectina- 



