no. 3627 ECHINIPHIMEDIA — BARNARD 9 



the inadequate description of Walker. A wide variability in characters 

 of E. echinata (Walker) is confirmed by Nicholls (1938) and this 

 appears to be true also for E. hodgsoni. 



Echiniphimedia echinata (Walker) 



Figures 4, 5 



llphimedia nodosa Dana, 1853, p. 928, pi. 63 (figs. 3, a, b).— Bate, 1862, p. 125 



pi. 23 (fig. 1).— ?Chevreux, 1912, pp. 118-119. 

 Iphimedia echinata Walker, 1906, p. 150; 1907, pp. 28-29, pi. 10 (fig. 16).— 



Chevreux, 1912, p. 119. 

 Echiniphimedia nodosa. — K. H. Barnard, 1930, pp. 361-363, fig. 33. 

 Echiniphimedia echinata. — K. H. Barnard, 1932, p. 126. — Nicholls, 1938, pp. 



80-82, fig. 42. 

 Not Iphimedia nodosa. — Stebbing, 1906, pp. 216-217. 



Nomenclature. — K. H. Barnard (1930) synonymized Iphimedia 

 echinata with /. nodosa but then reversed his position in 1932 after 

 Schellenberg (1931) refuted the move. Both /. echinata and /. nodosa 

 bear a strong resemblance to each other in several characters not 

 found as yet in other acanthonotozomatids, and K. H. Barnard's 

 conclusion that they were synonymous was probably correct. The 

 absence of teeth on pereonites 1-4 (or 5) but the presence of super- 

 numerary submarginal teeth on pleonites (1) 2-3 are characteristic of 

 both Dana's and Walker's material. Dana apparently did not com- 

 pletely understand the morphology of his species for he failed to 

 account for some important characters such as the giant posterior 

 teeth of pleonal epimeron 3 and the dorsal teeth of the urosome. As 

 his material has long been presumed lost, one can only conjecture on 

 how he failed to illustrate or describe these characters adequately 

 unless an acanthonotozomatid fitting his description more closely than 

 does /. echinata remains to be rediscovered. Until we can be sure 

 that such does not exist, it is prudent to place Dana's and Walker's 

 species together only in provisional status. 



Schellenberg (1931) and K. H. Barnard (1932), in his retraction of 

 the 1930 synonymy, apparently were both misled by Stebbing (1906), 

 who appears to have based his monographic description of Dana's 

 /. nodosa on a species only remotely related to Dana's. His interpreta- 

 tion of Dana's work was far too extreme, and we must presume he 

 found in British Museum collections an undescribed acanthonoto- 

 zomatid that seemed close to /. nodosa. I have made no attempt to 

 trace that species to a taxon described later, but there is a strong 

 possibility that such exists. It may indeed represent a specimen 

 Schellenberg figured as "/. nodosa." The generic assignment is open 

 to question also except that neither fits Echiniphimedia as diagnosed 

 herein. K. H. Barnard's (1932) " Iphimediella nodosa" is yet another 

 species but not an Echiniphimedia. 



