282 S. I. Smith — Ampldpodus genera^ 



be iinit'onnily dirtused, giving the auiinal a pale red tint; in still 

 others the red is largely replaced by brown. The animal apparently 

 does not constrnct tnbes for itself, though often found in the tubes of 

 other Amphipoda and in the tubes of Annelida. In the Bay of 

 Fundy T have found it abundantly in small holes in sandy mud near 

 low-water mark. 



Tlie species described by Say and that described by Kroyer are 

 not only congeneric, as suggested by Dana, but apparently specifi- 

 cally identical. Specimens from the coast of New England agi'ee in 

 every particular with Boeck's descriptions and with Kroyer's de- 

 scriptions and figures, except in the details referred to beyond. Say 

 describes the second gnathopods as " adactyle " and the third pair 

 of i^ropods as siraj^le, dejtressed and concealed by the others, and he 

 failed to distinguish the very short sixth segment of the pleon from 

 the telson, describing the two together as the terminal segment of 

 the "tail." These are very natural eri-ors, considering the minute- 

 ness of the appendages. In all other respects Say's description is 

 correct. Kroyer, on the other hand, incorrectly describes and fig- 

 ures the third uropods as bi-ramus, mistaking the terminal lobe 

 on the inner side of the base for a second ramus. Boeck, who 

 had access to Kroyer's types, states that Kroyer's figure of the 

 third uropod is incorrect but does not mention the corresponding 

 error in the description of the species. White (Catalogue Crust. 

 British Museum, p. 90, 1847) records, as in the British Museum, 

 specimens of Uiiciola irrorata received from Say; Bate, however, 

 (Catalogue Amphip. Crust. British Museum, p. 279, 1862) states 

 that he has seen no specimens, but refers Kroyei-'s species to Unciola^ 

 although he in part misquotes and in part misunderstands Say's 

 geneiic description. Bate appears to have drawn his description of 

 Kroyer's species from the original figure and generic diagnosis and 

 not from the very full description of the species, for he says that no 

 reference to the telson is made either by Say or by Kroyer and that 

 it is not impossible that the genus is synonymous with " Microden- 

 topus,'''' although the telson is described by Kroyer, in the description 

 just referred to, and is figured in the Voyage en Scandinavie. 



The genus Le^ndaetglis. 



It has long been known to me that Say's genus Lepidactylis was 



congeneric with Sulcator of Bate, as suggested by Dana in 1852; 



but Bate's description and figures not appearing fully to warrant the 



assumption of the identity of the European and American species, 



