4 DISCOVERY REPORTS 



descriptions get subjected more and more to the fire of criticism. It is comparatively 

 easy to sort out the specimens into species; the assignation of names, giving due credit 

 to earlier authors, is the difficulty. All praise is due to those who have paved the way in 

 the study of Antarctic and sub-Antarctic Amphipods. It is inevitable that pioneers 

 should leave a few stones, sticks and snags as stumbling-blocks to those who follow. 

 It takes much work to make a well-defined path, and also to arrive at a clear-cut definition 

 of a "species." 



It is also inevitable, with an ever more searching analysis of specific characters, that 

 even the most elaborate descriptions will often be found to lack just the precise informa- 

 tion which a later student requires. 



Therefore, I realize only too well the deficiencies, and no doubt the errors, in the 

 present report. In many instances I have been led to conclusions differing from those 

 of other writers. In some cases I have utilized characters which have not been utilized 

 before, with the result that perhaps it will at first have made confusion worse con- 

 founded. This is not really so, but it means that many precious records are not available 

 for the discussion of problems of geographical distribution until the material has been 

 re-examined. The final settlement of such questions must be left to a student vhc Las 

 the opportunity of making a critical study and comparison of the Antarctic material now 

 preserved in the museums at London, Paris and Berlin. 



With reference to the times of day of the captures as set out in the Station List, I 

 would like to remark on the convenience in having the hours between sunset and sun- 

 rise printed in heavy type. This very greatly facilitates working out the daily bathy- 

 metrical migration of certain species. 



I also wish to thank Dr W. T. Caiman, F.R.S., and Dr Isabella Gordon, of the 

 British Museum, for their kindly help in giving me transcriptions, tracings, and answers 

 to many queries. 



When entrusting me with the collection of Terra Nova Amphipods, Dr Caiman 

 included also a small collection of specimens made in South Georgia by Major Barrett- 

 Hamilton. The identifications of these have been included as an appendix to the present 

 report with the concurrence of Dr Kemp. 



I have also seen some MS. notes on a few Amphipods from the Quest Expedition, 

 by the late Dr Chilton. These do not extend our knowledge of the distribution of the 

 species beyond what is recorded in the present report, with the exception of one species 

 (see infra, p. 54), and they are therefore not included here. I have not seen the 

 specimens. 



The important paper of Dr Schellenberg (March 193 1) on the Gammarids of the 

 Swedish Antarctic Expedition and other collections was received after my MSS. had 

 gone to press 1 . This explains why only the obvious and certain synonyms have been 

 struck out. There are probably other synonyms among the species here described as 

 new, but which are better reserved for more deliberate consideration than can be given 

 in the present circumstances. 



1 Forwarded on February 13 and received by the Discover}- Committee on March 10, 193 1. 



