6 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 124 



Male, 19 mm, EW 66-004: This specimen has essentially no teeth 

 on pleonite 5, no supraocular tooth, the ventrolateral cephalic tooth 

 forming the anterior boundary of the cheek notch is much longer than 

 in other specimens, and the tooth of the posterior boundary is obsolete. 



Male, 9 mm, ET 1003 : This specimen is somewhat closer to Walker's 

 portrayal of the species than are other specimens. The thin dorsal 

 teeth are densely packed, the supraocular tooth is absent, and the 

 coxae have the following number of teeth: coxa 1=3, 2=4, 3 = 5, 

 4=5, 5=8, 6=4 or 5 (left and right) and 7=2. The mandibular in- 

 cisor is deeply serrate and the lacinia mobilis very broad. Pleonite 5 

 has one pair of dorsolateral erect cusps and pleonite 6, a small medial 

 pair and a large posterolateral pair. 



Material. — ET 428 (female, 38 mm); 993 (damaged juvenile, 

 8.0 mm); ET 1003 (female, 29 mm, and male, 9.0 mm). EW 66-004 

 (male, 19 mm); EW 66-022 (female, 37 mm). 



Kecords.— ET 428, 62°41'S, 57°51 / W, 662-1120 m; ET 993, 

 61°25'S, 56°30'W, 300 m; ET 1003, 62°40'S, 54°45'W, 210-219 m; 

 EW 66-004, 67°49.8'S, 69°10.5'W, 119 m; EW 66-022, 60°26.5'S, 

 45°53.3'W, 146-168 m. Bransfield Strait; near Elephant Island; 

 off Adelaide Island ; South Orkney Islands. 



Distribution. — Coulman Island, 183 m; McMurdo Sound, 348-547 

 m; Oates Land, 329-366 m; Cumberland Bay, South Georgia Islands, 

 250-310 m, and South Georgia Islands, 110-401 m; South Shetland 

 Islands, 200-342 m; Palmer Archipelago, 90-130 m; Commonwealth 

 Bay, 82-730 m; Davis Sea, 200-595 m. Confirmed depth range, 

 119-662 m. 



Remarks. — This is probably the most strongly ornamented 

 gammaridean amphipod. It is rivalled only by Uschakoviella echino- 

 phora Gurjanova (1955), on which the ornamental spines are articulate 

 and small, and by Actinacanthus Stebbing (1888), on which the 

 processes are fewer in number but so large that they dominate the 

 body completely. The teeth of Echiniphimedia have been drawn in 

 the accompanying figures exactly as they appear on the organism 

 except for a few obviously bent or apically broken teeth that have 

 been restored to their presumed original condition; a few large dorsal 

 teeth have not been restored because one cannot determine their 

 extent. The overall appearance of the in toto view of the 38 mm female 

 differs strongly from that published by Walker (1907) mainly because 

 the teeth and cusps are actually smaller than he represented them 

 to be and more of the details of coxae and somites are truly visible. 

 Of course, teeth projecting laterally are foreshortened. The pattern of 

 teeth is not precisely symmetrical on bilateral comparison but is 

 extremely similar from side to side. Surficial chitin between processes 



