MIMONECTIDAE : LANCEOLIDAE 253 



the supposed $ and <$ forms, I am inclined to regard S 1 . diomedeae as synonymous with 

 the P. fozvleri of Stebbing, and to agree with Pirlot that the form described and figured 

 by Chevreux and Stephensen represents a different species. The differences between 

 Stebbing's form and diomedeae, as detailed by Woltereck (1909, p. 151), seem to me of 

 very minor importance. 



The present specimen considerably extends the known distribution of this species 

 southwards. S. diomedeae was captured in the Pacific. 



Distribution. North Atlantic, southwards to 31 N. 



Parascina chevreusi, Pirlot. 



Chevreux, 1905, p. 1 (J) (fozvleri, non Stebb.); 1919, p. 9 (part) (fowleri, non Stebb.). 

 Stephensen, 1918, p. 17, figs. 5, 6 (S) (fozvleri, non Stebb.). 

 Pirlot, 1929, p. 56. 



Occurrence: 1. St. 287. East mid- Atlantic. 1 S 9 mm. 

 2. St. 288. East mid-Atlantic. 1 <J 12 mm. 



Remarks. The specimens agree with Stephensen's description and figures, but the 

 upper margin of antenna 1 in no. 1 is densely beset with fine setae instead of somewhat 

 coarse filamentous setae. 



Distribution. North Atlantic. 



Family LANCEOLIDAE 



Bovallius, 1887, p. 5. 

 Stephensen, 1918, p. 8. 

 Woltereck, 1927, p. 59. 

 Barnard, 1930, p. 397. 



Genus Lanceola, Say. 



Bovallius, 1887, p. 28 (key to species). 



Stebbing, 1904, p. 28 (key to species). 



Woltereck, 1905, pp. 413, 416 (Physosoma larva); 1927, pp. 60, 68. 



Stephensen, 1918, p. 8. 



Chevreux, 1920, p. 1. 



These Amphipods are typically bathypelagic, and even at night rarely rise nearer the 

 surface than about 100 m. They reach a large size (Woltereck, 1905, p. 414: 61 mm.), 

 but the great majority of specimens captured are considerably smaller and represent 

 immature stages (Stephensen, 1918, p. 12). The largest specimens in the Discovery 

 collection are two <SS of 40 mm. and a ? of 42 mm. ; the latter is not ovigerous. 



The fact that descriptions of the species have often been based on immature speci- 

 mens makes the systematics of this genus somewhat difficult (cf. Woltereck, 1905, 

 p. 414), and in practice it will be found that the use of Bovallius' and Stebbing's keys 

 lead to conflicting results. 



In the present material the separation of the four species has been comparatively easy 

 and the following synopsis may be given to facilitate future identification in the field. 



