252 DISCOVERY REPORTS 



Remarks. This specimen resembles M . diomedeae in general shape, the pointed side- 

 plates on segments 3 and 4, elongate terminal joint of antenna 2, and mandibular palp ; 

 but differs sharply in the very large dactyls of peraeopods 1-5. 



M. diomedeae was found in the Pacific by the ' Albatross ', and since Woltereck's very 

 brief description of it in 1909, no further specimens of the genus have been reported. 



Family MIMONECTIDAE 



Bovallius, 1889, p. 59. 



Woltereck, 1909, p. 147 (Eumimonectidae). 



Stephensen, 1923, p. 5; 1925 a, p. 244 (Eumimonectidae). 



Pirlot, 1929, pp. 46, 53 (Mimonectidae + Scinidae part). 



Barnard, 1930, p. 394. 



Here again family delimitations are uncertain owing to the varying importance 

 attached to the character of the maxilliped by different authors. Stephensen and Pirlot 

 place Parascina (with separate inner plates in the maxilliped) alongside Scina (with 

 fused inner plates); Woltereck separates them. If general appearance has any value, 

 the former authors are certainly correct, for the globular Mimonectes is very different 

 from the more normally shaped Parascina and Scina. In pelagic forms, however, 

 external appearance is liable to be very misleading (cf. also Katins and Eurythenes, 

 supra, p. 56). Eventually a separate family will probably be instituted for Parascina 

 and Sphaeromimonectes. 



Genus Parascina, Stebb. 

 Stebbing, 1904, p. 20 ($). 

 Woltereck, 1909, p. 151. 

 Stephensen, 1918, p. 17 (<J). 

 Pirlot, 1929, p. 53 (incl. Sphaeromimonectes). 

 Barnard, 1930, p. 395. 



I am not prepared to accept, as yet, Pirlot's suggestion to include all Woltereck's 

 Sphaermimonectes species in this genus. 



Parascina fowleri, Stebb. 



Stebbing, 1904, p. 21, pi. ii, fig. B ($). 

 Chevreux, 19 19, p. 9 (part). 

 ? Woltereck, 1909, p. 150, fig. 8. 

 N011 Stephensen, 1918, p. 17. 



Occurrence: St. 87. South-east Atlantic. 1 $ 8 mm. (mutilated). 



Remarks. This ? specimen agrees with Stebbing's description and figures, but the 

 upper margin of antenna 1 appears to lack setae. The pointed process above the base of 

 the dactyl in gnathopods 1 and 2 is broader than in Stebbing's figures. The brood 

 lamellae are not developed. The specimen is not in very good condition. 



The great resemblance between this species and Sphaeromimonectes diomedeae has 

 already been mentioned by Woltereck (1909, p. 151) and I have advocated transferring 

 the latter species to the genus Parascina (1930, p. 395). Having seen examples of both 



