42 DISCOVERY REPORTS 



The epistome and upper lip are not at all prominent in N.goesii or in the form figured 

 by Monod (1926, fig. 50). But in Socamoides they are both prominent, the epistome 

 forming a very conspicuous plate. Stephensen's fig. 2 (1927) shows a strongly projecting 

 profile very similar to that of the upper lip in kergueleni, though the description says the 

 epistome projects. What was the character of the epistome and upper lip in Chilton's 

 (1909 and 1921^) and Tattersall's specimens? 



A further point arises in the comparison of the shape of the 4th side-plate. Monod 

 figures a very deep excavation, the lobe extending backwards to the end of the 5th 

 side-plate. Thomson (1892, Proc. Roy. Soc. Tasman., p. 64, pi. v, fig. 10) and Tattersall 

 figure a rectangular excavation. Both forms are utterly different from Stebbing's figure 

 of kergueleni, and surely the agreement between Thomson's and Tattersall's figures is 

 not accidental, but expresses a real difference which should cause one to hesitate before 

 uniting these forms with kergueleni. Is the Parawaldeckia kidderi of Tattersall (which 

 has accessory branchiae) a synonym of " Lysianax'" stebbingi, Thorns.? 



A comparison of the figures of the 1st gnathopod (and to a less extent the 2nd 

 gnathopod) given by Stebbing (1888), Thomson (1892), Tattersall (1922), Monod 

 (1926), and Stephensen (1927) leads one also to the conclusion that several (two at least) 

 species have been unjustifiably united. 



This criticism may sound drastic, but it shows that the union of all these forms under 

 the one name kidderi is most unfortunate. One must admit that Stebbing's description 

 of kergueleni is a full and satisfactory description ; Stephensen's specimens are easily 

 recognizable, as are Monod's and probably also Tattersall's. Though Stephensen com- 

 pares and contrasts his specimens with kergueleni, one would have liked a figure of the 

 4th side-plate ; and in the case of the 'Belgica' specimens one would like to know whether 

 accessory branchiae were present. 



One may perhaps hazard a guess that the 'Belgica' specimens will prove to be a species 

 of true Nannonyx; that P. kidderi, Tattersall will be synonymous with stebbingi, Thorns, 

 and a true Parazvaldeckia, but distinct from thomsoni, Stebb. As for Stephensen's 

 specimens they have the upper lip of Socamoides, the 3rd uropod of Nannonyx, plus 

 the accessory branchiae of Parazvaldeckia. A thorough study of abundant Australasian 

 material is obviously required. 



Finally, although Stebbing compared his genus with Socarnes, Boeck, the comparison 

 might have been made with Lysianassa which is closely allied with Socarnes. The dis- 

 tinctive features of Socamoides, which separate it from both the other genera, are the 

 maxillipeds and the prominent epistome, and in both of these features it shows an 

 approach to Socarnopsis, Chevr., 1910. 



These remarks were written before the appearance of Schellenberg's 1931 paper. 



