104 



DISCOVERY REPORTS 



The description of the postero-inferior angle of pleon segment 3 given by Stebbing 

 (1906, p. 146) for Pontharpinia rostrata might perhaps apply here. But I am unwilling 

 to identify the Discovery specimens with the Australian rostrata, in spite of Stebbing's 

 record of it from the Falkland Islands, until the Australian forms pinguis, rostrata and 

 villosa have been given an exact status. 



Parharpinia rotundifrons, n.sp. (Fig. 53). 



Occurrence : 1 . St. 39. South Georgia. 1 $9 mm. Type. 



2. St. 141. South Georgia. 1 2 8 mm. 



3. St. WS 25. South Georgia. ijuv.4-5mm. 



Fig- 53- Parharpinia rotundifrons, n.sp. 

 a. Dorsal view of head. b. Pleon segments 

 3 and 4. 



Description 2. Differing from the preceding 

 species as follows. 



Hood broadly rounded in front. Pleon segment 3 

 with postero-inferior angle produced in a rather 

 narrowly rounded lobe, slightly concave on its 

 upper margin which bears 3-4 minute spinules. 



Gnathopods 1 and 2, proportions of 5th joint 

 to 6th intermediate between obliqua and villosa 

 (as figured by Tattersall), i.e. in gnathopod 1, 

 5th joint is three-quarters length of 6th, in gnathopod 2 half its length. 



Peraeopods 3-5 as in sinuata, but anterior margin of peraeopod 4 more strongly 

 convex. 



Family AMPHILOCHIDAE 



Barnard, 1916, p. 143; 1930, p. 337. 

 Schellenberg, 1926, p. 301 ; 193 1, p. 92. 



Genus Gitanopsis, G. O. Sars. 

 Stebbing, 1906, p. 153. 

 Barnard, 19 16, p. 144. 

 Schellenberg, 1926, p. 301 ; 193 1, p. 95. 



Gitanopsis antarctica, Chevr. 



Chilton, 1912, p. 479. (Amp/iiloc/iits squamosus, nun Thorns.) 



Chevreux, 1913, p. 104, figs. 13-15. 



Schellenberg, 1926, p. 301. (Amphilochus squamosus, non Thorns.) 



Occurrence: St. MS 67. South Georgia. 1 ovig. 2 4 mm. 



Remarks. Although Chilton has united antarctica with the New Zealand Amphilochus 

 squamosus, and Schellenberg has accepted this, I think it better to suspend judgment 

 for the present. No detailed modern figures of the New Zealand form have been given, 

 and the uniting of the two forms rests on the individual opinion of one author: " I cannot 

 find any character of importance. . .". (Chilton, 1923, Trans. N.Z. Inst. LIV, p. 240.) 

 Another reason for not following Chilton is that he also included marionis, Stebb., in the 

 synonymy, to which Schellenberg, quite rightly in my opinion, does not subscribe. 



