SYSTEMATIC REPORT 127 



(2) Antenna/ scale relatively more slender. In the types and in the Discovery specimens of 

 L. capensis the ratio of the length to the greatest breadth is 2-7 : 1 whereas in L. nonveli it is slightly 

 more than 3:1. The spine marking the distal end of the naked outer margin is more slender and acute 

 in L. nouveli than in capensis. 



(3) Uropod. Nouvel definitely stated that the endopod of the uropod was unarmed; Tattersall did 

 not mention this point, but in L. capensis there is a spine near the statocyst (Fig. 30 B). 



(4) Size. Nouvel's specimen of 9-8 mm. was quite immature with very small oostegites. Tattersall's 

 specimens of 6-9 mm. from the surface and a male of 10 mm. from deeper water were all immature, 

 and adult females measured 13 mm. Zimmer's adult male type of L. capensis was only 9 mm. and in 

 the Discovery material, males of 9-10 mm. and females of 8-2-8-6 mm. are quite adult, the latter with 

 very large oostegites. 



The form of the telson is not exactly similar in Nouvel's and Tattersall's specimens, but this may 

 be due to two things. First, the telson from which I made the figure for Tattersall's report had been 

 dissected off and mounted and was therefore flattened, so that it is wider than it would appear in situ. 

 Professor Nouvel has told me that, having but a single specimen, he made his figure without dissecting 

 the telson off and the lateral margins, being foreshortened, appeared less convex. The apex was 

 damaged in his specimen so that he was not able to show its armature. 



• Tattersall stated that all his specimens of both sexes had a tuft of long setae at the base of the outer 

 flagellum of the antennule. Nouvel did not mention this point, but his specimen was badly damaged 

 and they may have been broken off. I can find no trace of any such tufts in my material. 



Distribution. The types of L. capensis were taken in a vertical haul from 1000-0 m. in daylight. 

 The only other record of the species was by Illig — also in a vertical haul from a great depth to the 

 surface by daylight — off the east of the Cape Verde Is. The Discovery collection indicates that it is 

 widely distributed in the waters of the South Atlantic, from the coasts of Africa to Tristan da Cunha. 

 Six of the ten hauls in which it was taken were oblique and taken at night, two of them from a depth 

 of 200 m. to the surface, one from 230 m. to the surface, one from 450-0 m., one from 550-0 m. and 

 one in a closing net from 550-450 m. The remaining four hauls were also oblique and were taken in 

 daylight. Two were taken from iooo(-o) m. and one from 475(-o) m. where the nets failed to close, 

 and one in a closing net between 550 m. and 450 m. 



It is evident that the species is not such a deep-water form as has been supposed and it must be 

 regarded as a definitely mesoplanktonic species. 



Genus Euchaetomera G. O. Sars, 1884 



1884 Euchaetomera G. O. Sars, p. 42. 

 1896 Brutomysis Chun, p. 179. 

 19066 Mastigophthalmus Illig, p. 227. 

 1910 Euchaetomera Hansen, p. 65. 



Euchaetomera typica G. O. Sars, 1884 



1884 Euchaetomera typica G. O. Sars, p. 42; 1885, p. 211, figs. 



1896 Brutomysis vogtii Chun, p. 179, figs. 



1906a Euchaetomera limbata Illig, p. 203, fig. 



1914 Euchaetomera typica, Zimmer, p. 393. 



1918 Euchaetomera sennae Colosi, p. 7; 1920, p. 239, figs. 



1930 Euchaetomera typica, Illig, p. 434, figs. 



1923 Euchaetomera typica, Tattersall, p. 283; 1939, p. 243. 



