392 DISCOVERY REPORTS 



bb. Abdominal somite 3 with dorsal spine. 

 c. Carapace rounded posteriorly. 



d. Rostrum shorter than peduncle of antennule Stenopid IV. 



dd. Rostrum longer than antennule. 



e. Pleural spines on all abdominal somites Stenopid III. 



ee. Somites 4 and 5 without pleural spines Stenopid VI. 



cc. Carapace with posterior spine ... ... ... ... ... ... Stenopid V. 



LITERATURE REFERRED TO 



Brooks, W. K. and Herrick, F. H., 1891. The embryology and metamorphosis of the Macrura. Mem. Nat. 



Acad. Sci. Wash., v, pp. 321-576. 

 Gang, G., 1892. Sviluppo postembrionale dello Stenopus spinosus. Boll. Soc. Nat. Napoli (i), v, pp. 134-7. 

 Gaullery, M., 1896. Resultats scientifiques de la Campagne du " Caiidan " dans le Golfe de Gascogne. Crustaces, 



schisopodes ei decapodes. Ann. Univ. Lyon, xxvi, pp. 362-419. 

 Gurney, R., 1924. Decapod Larvae. Nat. Hist. Rep. 'Terra Nova' Exped., Zool., viii, No. 2, part ix. 

 Ortmann, a. E., 1893. Decapoda und Schizopoda. Plankton Expedition der Humboldt Stiftung. Kiel, 



Bd. II, 120 pp. 



PART II. AMPHIONIDAE 



The genus Amphion was founded by H. Milne Edwards in 1832 on a specimen taken 

 in the Indian Ocean, and he included it in 1837, together with Phylhsoma, in his " Sto- 

 mapodes bicuirassees ", on the assumption that it was a mature form. Dohrn (1870) 

 also accepted it as an adult genus, but Claus (1876) insisted on its larval nature and 

 concluded that it was most nearly related to Sergestidae. He studied a series of stages, 

 the earliest of which appears to have been stage III, but he did not have the oldest stage 

 with leg 5 developed. About the same time appeared a letter from Willemoes-Suhm 

 from the 'Challenger' (December 1875) in which he claimed to be able to distinguish 

 males and females, and Claus, in a postscript, was forced to accept the possibility that 

 Amphion may become mature without much change of form, in which case it would 

 represent "eine interessante Schizopoden-Form, deren Maxillen und vorderen Kiefer- 

 fiisse zu den Decapoden hinfiihren und deren Riickenschilde bereits mit sammtlichen 

 Thoracalringen verwachsen ist" (p. 112). Boas (1879, 1880) discussed the genus and 

 concluded that it was a larval form related to Phyllosoma. He suggested that it was the 

 larva of Polycheles. Spence Bate (1888), with a comparatively rich material, described 

 a number of stages and distinguished two species, but found none which could "with 

 certainty be pronounced to be adult". He thought, however, that the adult would not 

 differ much from the oldest larva described, in which leg 5 was a large uniramous rudiment. 

 He included it, with Procletes, Icotopus, Hectorthropus and Eretmocaris, all larval genera, 

 in a tribe Haplopoda and family Hectarthropidae. 



Korschelt and Heider (1893, p. 461) regarded Amphion as the larva of a carid, owing 

 to its possession of phyllobranchs. Ortmann (1893, p. 90) added nothing to our know- 

 ledge of the genus, but rejected Bate's species A.provocatoris. Koeppel (1902) attempted 

 a thorough revision of the genus, but with inadequate material (nine specimens) 

 and unfortunate results. He claimed to have found "brood lamellae" at the base of 



