SYSTEMATIC REPORT 83 



I found one or two points, however, in which Hansen's figures do not fully agree with the specimens 

 of B. fragilis which I examined. He neither records nor figures any spines arming the inner margin of 

 the endopod of the uropod, but on close examination I found that in every case there was a single 

 slender spine just distal to the statocyst and, in two cases, there was a second spine distal to the first. 

 In the report on the holotype male, Dr Chace states, ' I find that there is not only a spine on the lower 



Fig. 14. Boreomvsis acuminata sp.n. A, anterior end of female in lateral view; B, anterior end of female in dorsal view; 

 C, anterior end of male in dorsal view; D, telson and left uropod in dorsal view. All x 15. 



surface of the inner branch of the uropod just inside the median margin and just distal to the stato- 

 cyst, as mentioned in your specimens from the south-eastern Atlantic, but there is also a second similar 

 spine about the same distance distal to the first as the latter is from the base of the inner branch of the 

 uropod.' He goes on to say that on one uropod he could find only one spine and suggests that the 

 other may have been knocked off. The material is in poor condition and the specimens are fragile, as 

 Hansen evidently recognized, and it may be that normally there are two spines arming the under side 

 of the inner margin of the endopod and in those cases where only the proximal one is present the 

 distal one, being more exposed, has been broken off. 



