138 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. loi 



e^ Cephalon with a short triangulate rostrum ; spinelike posterolateral 

 angles of pleotelson not exceeding the posterior extent of medial 



posterior pleotelson lobe occidentalis (Walker) 



a I Pleotelson posterolateral areas evenly curved, lacking distinct angles or 

 spinelike processes. 



ft \ Cephalon lacking expanded anterolateral angles rajata, nev? species 



b ^ Cephalon with expanded anterolateral angles, 

 c \ Cephalon rostral projection exceeding the anterior extent of antero- 

 lateral angles alascensis (Benedict) 



c *. Cephalon with or without a small rostral projection which, if present, 

 does not exceed the anterior extent of anterolateral angles. 

 d '. Posterior pleotelson border consisting of three equally produced 

 prominent lobes. 

 e \ Dorsal surface of pleotelson with a row of setae above insertion of 



each uropod'' soldatovi (Gurjanova) 



e ^ Dorsal surface of pleotelson lacking a row of setae above insertion 



of each uropod erostrata (Richardson) 



d '. Posterior pleotelson border with a single median lobe. 



davisi, new species 



REMARKS CONCERNING HANSEN'S CONCEPT OF JANIRA LEACH 



Hansen (1916, p. 21) canceled lolella Richardson, 1905 (also known 

 as lanthe^ Tole^ and lole) simply by considering the genotype of 

 lolella^ lanthe speciosa Bovallins, a synonym of lanira spinsosa 

 Harger. "VVliether he was justified in this decision remains proble- 

 matical. Eichardson (1905b, p. 460) did not agree with Hansen in 

 this respect and was severely criticized by Hansen (1916, p. 22) for 

 this view. Hansen wrote, "But as she [Richardson] had not seen any 

 specimen ref ered to /. speciosa and not any further material, the state- 

 ment, 'I find it [/. speciosa] distinct from /. spi7iosa\ is of no value." 



Since specimens, in particular the types, of neither species are 

 available to me, I am unable to resolve this dispute. Assuming for 

 the present that Richardson was correct and Hansen incorrect, then 

 one must determine whether lolella has any morphological character- 

 istics that separate it from lanira (auct. Janira). Hansen did not 

 believe so and writes, '■''lolella Richardson with its synonyms . . . can 

 not be separated from lanira in any natural way." In that respect 

 I cannot agree with Hansen, and I feel that I can substantiate my 

 belief, in part at least, with Hansen's own statements. Since Hansen 

 considered lanthe speciosa Bovallins (the genotype of lolella) a 

 synonym of lanira spinosa Harger any generic remarks he would 

 have concerning /. spinosa probably also apply to /. speciosa. He 

 writes of /. spinosa Harger, "Epimeral processes are completely 



''If this is an error (Gurjanova, 193S, p. 90, English translation), as it might possibly 

 be, then I should, with little hesitation, consider J. soldatovi a synonym of J. erostrata. 

 In J. erostrata and the other species of tliis genus the ventral surface of the pleotelson 

 does have a row of setae anterior to the insertion of each uropod ; however, Gurjanova 

 definitely states that two rows of setae ( = spines) are present on the dorsal pleotelson 

 surface in J. soldatovi. 



