562 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 94 



specimens are concerned." The two males here described furnish 

 a manifest contradiction to this statement. They were properly 

 labeled and available in the collection of the National Museum. 

 Meehean (1940, p. 499) examined and rejected them because "the 

 males were immature so that the accessory copulatory apparatus 

 was not developed far enough to tell whether there were any specific 

 diiferences." Specific differences are not confined to the accessory 

 copulatory apparatus. The very use of the word accessory refutes 

 such an idea and we turn to a consideration of the other character- 

 istics to which these are accessory. 



These two males were found in company with two females that 

 were certainly A. latus, and the natural assumption would be that the 

 four were the two sexes of the same species. The males are just the 

 right size for adult males of the species latus; the respiratory areas, 

 the supporting rods of the sucking disks, and the first and second 

 antennae are like those of the female latus. The maxillipeds are 

 prehensile as would be expected in males, but the basal plate has neither 

 spines on its posterior margin nor a boss on its ventral surface and 

 so far corresponds to those of the female. Finally, the abdomen shown 

 in figure 109 is as different from the abdomen of the funduli male, 

 shown in figure 123, in size, shape, posterior sinus, and the position of 

 the caudal rami, and in the shape and size of the testes as is necessary for 

 specific differentiation. With an abdomen of the relative size here 

 shown and a pair of enlarged testes crammed with sperm it would 

 seem as if these males might be considered sufficiently developed to be 

 assigned to the species latu^. The abdomen alone shows that they 

 cannot now be placed in the species funduli and it is doubtful if suffi- 

 cient changes will ever occur in further development to allow them 

 to be placed there. 



In spite of such manifest specific differences these specimens identi- 

 fied as and labeled A. latus by the present author were recorded by 

 Meehean as synonyms of A. funduli. He remarked (1940, p. 499) 

 that "Smith's description of A. latus is not full enough to enable one 

 to determine whether he has established a true species." Meagerness 

 of description is no more proof of synonymy than of validity. 



Taking into account, therefore, all the specific characteristics de- 

 scribed above it seems reasonable to conclude that A. latus is a valid 

 species, now that both sexes are known. 



Incidentally it is worthy of note that figure 108 bears the signature 

 of J. H. Emerton, the locality Quohog Bay, and date September 3, 

 1873, and "drawn from life." In all probability this figure was drawn 

 for the 1873 description from one of the original type specimens. 

 Quohog Bay lies between Marthas Vineyard and Chappaquiddick 

 Island and the brackish-water pond from which the present specimens 



