ARGISSIDAE , 4S 



Remarks. The absence of a dorsal tooth on pleon segment i, the truncate telsonic 

 apices, and the projecting epistome are the distinctive marks of this species. 



Family ARGISSIDAE 

 Walker, 1904, pp. 246, 248. 

 Stebbing, 1906, p. 722. 



Walker instituted this family to include Platyiscknopus alongside of Argissa on the 

 grounds of the similar development of the 1 st antenna of $ , and the posterior peraeopods . 

 To this opinion I cannot subscribe. The posterior peraeopods of Platyiscknopus appear 

 to me to be far more in conformity with those of the Haustoriidae, in which family 

 Stebbing placed his genus (1906, p. 122). Secondly, the 1st antenna of $ of Argissa bears 

 far more resemblance to that of e.g. Pardalisca than it does to that of Platyiscknopus. 

 I therefore suggest that Platyiscknopus be left in the Haustoriidae. The following genus 

 which agrees with Argissa in a number of characters may be included in the Argissidae, 

 or alternatively both may find a place in the Tironidae where Stebbing placed Argissa. 



Phylluropus, n.g. 



Body compressed. Rostrum small. Eyes well developed. Side-plates 1-4 deep, but 

 3 much smaller than the others, 4 largest, feebly excavate on hind margin, 5-7 longer 

 than deep, 5 feebly bilobed. Telson ?. 



Antenna 1 with accessory flagellum. Upper lip feebly incised. Lower lip with inner 

 lobes distinct. Mandible normal, palp strong. Maxilla 1 with few setae on inner lobe, 

 palp well developed. Maxilla 2, inner lobe slightly broader than outer, with an oblique 

 row of setae. Maxilliped normal. 



Gnathopods 1 and 2 simple. Peraeopods 1 and 2, 2nd joint slender and elongate, 4th 

 elongate. Peraeopods 3-5, 2nd joint expanded on both anterior and posterior margins, 

 4th long, 5th and 6th (at least in peraeopod 3) slender. 



Uropods 1 and 2 with slender rami. Uropod 3 enormously developed, the rami 

 lamellate, set in a vertical plane. 



Remarks. The remarkable Amphipod for which this genus is created is unfortu- 

 nately represented by a single ?, with a mutilated telson. The 3rd uropod of the right 

 side is also abnormal, but in other respects the specimen is in good condition, though 

 the 2nd antennae and the distal joints of peraeopods 4 and 5 have been lost after capture. 



The deep anterior side-plates, the 3rd smaller than the 4th, give an appearance very 

 like Argissa, though on close examination the 2nd side-plate is seen to be a little larger 

 than the 1st, instead of obviously smaller. The gnathopods are comparable with those 

 of Argissa, but peraeopods 1 and 2 have the 2nd and 4th joints distinctive. The 2nd 

 joints of peraeopods 3-5 are certainly more akin to those of the Haustoriidae or some 

 Tironidae than to those of Argissa. The mouth-parts afford no decisive argument as to 

 the systematic position of this form. 



The most remarkable feature is the 3rd uropod, which gives the hind end of the 

 animal the appearance of, e.g., a Pronoid Amphipod or even a Cirolanid Isopod. Though 



