5 8 DISCOVERY REPORTS 



The ovigerous $ (St. 101) seems to be the largest and the only adult specimen yet 

 captured. The 'IngolP took a specimen about 33 mm. in length with small brood 

 lamellae. 



A coloured sketch of this large $ was taken at the time and is here reproduced. The 

 colour of no. 1 was noted as "white with pale brown eyes; hepatic and other internal 

 organs visible as a grey mass". 



The occurrence of this species in the Southern Atlantic has not hitherto been 

 recorded, except by Schellenberg, 193 1. 



Distribution. North Atlantic: Davis Strait to Azores (about 65 N-36 N) ; North 

 Pacific, 0-3000 m. 



Genus Eurythenes, S. I. Smith. 



Liljeborg, 1865 (N. Act. Soc. Upsala, ser. 3, vi, p. 11 ; or Arsskr. Kong. Univ., p. 6) (Eurytenes, 



preocc). 

 Sars, 1895, p. 85 (Euryporeia). 

 Chevreux, 1900, p. 24 (Euryporeia). 

 Stebbing, 1906, p. 72 (references). 

 Schellenberg, 1927, p. 678. 



As Chevreux remarks, Smith in changing the preoccupied Eurytenes into Eurythenes 

 altered the spelling though not the sound in languages where " h " is silent. Relaxation 

 of the nomenclatorial rules in favour of Sars' name would set a precedent which might 

 have far-reaching consequences in these days of linguistic aspirations. 



The following discussion centres around the magnificent Amphipod collected by 

 d'Orbigny in the stomach of a fish caught near Cape Horn and described by M. Edwards 

 as Lysianassa magellanica. Liljeborg (loc. cit.) on receiving three large Amphipods taken 

 from the stomach of Scymnus borealis at Hammerfest, came to the conclusion that they 

 were identical with the Antarctic form, and gave a description of them under the name 

 Eurytenes magellanicus . The Arctic form, however, had already been described in 1822, 

 and is now known as Eurythenes gryllus (Licht.). 



In 1865 Bate (Zool. Rec., 11, p. 331) criticized Liljeborg's opinion as to the identity of 

 the Arctic and Antarctic forms, pointed out several differences, and maintained the 

 accuracy of his description and figure of magellanicus in the British Museum Catalogue 

 (1862, p. 66, pi. x, fig. 5). 



No great significance attaches to the differences mentioned by Bate, though we may 

 note that the depth of the peraeon is one character which distinguishes Eurythenes from 

 Katius (cf. supra). But Bate himself seems to have fallen into an error, for he uses the 

 words (loc. cit., 1865, p. 332) "Lysianassa magellanica, With, its squamiform, undivided 

 telson. . . ", and adduces this as the final argument why magellanica cannot be put into 

 the genus " Anonyx" from which he says he cannot distinguish Liljeborg's genus 

 Eurytenes. He claims (1865, p. 331) to have seen the type specimen and from it to have 

 made small corrections in the figure given in 1862. Yet M. Edwards in his original 

 description distinctly states "deux appendices styliformes. . . representent le septieme 

 anneau" (cf. infra). 



