SYSTEMATIC REPORT 107 



that species (Fig. 22 A). The telson presents the most noticeable difference between the two species, 

 although its proportions and shape are similar. The spines in A. antarctica are confined to less than 

 the distal half of the lateral margins and, except for two or three at the proximal end of the series, 

 they are nearly of the same size throughout. There are from 27-29 on each side (Fig. 22 G). In 

 A. abbreviata there are approximately the same number of spines on each side, but they extend over 

 the distal two-thirds of the margins and are graduated, those at the apex being long and those on the 

 more proximal part of the margins becoming progressively smaller. As a result of the greater size and 

 the closer crowding of these spines, the telson in A. antarctica presents a very characteristic ap- 

 pearance. I do not think that with increased age these differences will disappear, for my specimens 

 are nearly mature and have well-developed though small oostegites. 



The first and second thoracic appendages are essentially the same in both species, but the other 

 thoracic endopods are missing (Fig. 22 D, E). I am unable to find any spines on the endopod of the 

 uropods (Fig. 22 F). 



Distribution. Bay of Whales at 167 m. and South Sandwich Isles 785-810 m. 



Amblyops sp. near Amblyops kempi (Holt and Tattersall), 1905 



(Fig. 23 A, B) 



1905 Pseudomma kempi Holt and Tattersall, p. 126. 

 1906a Pseudomma kempi Holt and Tattersall, p. 33, figs. 

 191 1 b Amblyops kempi Tattersall, p. 42, figs. 

 195 1 Amblyops kempi, Tattersall and Tattersall, p. 251, figs. 



Occurrence : 



St. WS 748. 16. ix. 31 (night). Magellan Strait, 30o(-o) m., 1 imm. S, 7-2 mm. 



Remarks. The single damaged specimen from station WS 748 very closely resembles Amblyops 

 kempi. The form of the anterior margin of the carapace, the antennular peduncles, the eyeplates, the 

 endopods of the uropods and the armature of the telson conform nearly with the descriptions and 

 figures of the types of A. ketnpi (Fig. 23 A, B). Unfortunately both antennal scales and the exopods 

 of the uropods are broken, but the portion of these appendages which remains also conforms with 

 A. kempi. The endopods of the third to the eighth thoracic appendages are missing and the pleopods 

 are too immature to have developed any secondary sexual characters. 



The only differences from A. ketnpi which this specimen shows lie in the position of the protu- 

 berance on the eyeplates and in the shape of the telson. In A. kempi each eyeplate is drawn out into 

 a lobe at the antero-lateral angle, while in this specimen the protuberance is situated in the median 

 line. In lateral view there is no difference to be seen. The telson shows the only noticeable difference 

 and, had the present specimen been adult, I would have founded a new species for it. The telson is 

 much broader in proportion to its length than in A. kempi and the lateral margins not so deeply con- 

 cave near the base. There are fewer spines arming the lateral margins — 22 on each side as against 

 27-28 in A. kempi — but the arrangement of the spines at the apex is precisely alike in the two species 

 (Fig. 23 B). As changes in the number of spines arming the lateral margins of the telson and in the 

 proportions of its length to breadth are known to take place with growth and, since the antennal scales, 

 which usually have marked specific characters, are missing, I do not feel justified in forming a new 

 species for this immature specimen. 



There is one interesting feature in the eyeplates which may be due merely to faulty preservation. All 

 over the plates there are rounded darker areas which may represent imperfect ocular elements. I can 

 see no trace of any innervation. 



14-2 



