18 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 122 



maxilla (fig. 106) a well-sclerotized recurved hook with a broad base 

 perhaps representing a basal segraent. Maxilliped (figs. 107, 108) with 

 a prominent 1-segmented basal area bearing a well-sclerotized short 

 clawlike tip. 



Legs 1 and 2 similar in form, each leg far removed from its opposite 

 member, without an intercoxal plate. Leg 1 (fig. 109), located near 

 maxilliped (see fig. 105), with an indefinitely defined protopodal area, 

 a slender setiform unsegmented exopod, and a rather weakly sclerotized 

 unsegmented endopod bearmg a single blunt hyaline seta (its arti- 

 culation indistinct). Leg 3 (fig. 110) consisting of a single seta 22ju 

 in length. Leg 4 absent. 



Leg 5 absent. 



Leg 6 (figs. 101, 111) consisting of a posteroventral flap on genital 

 segment bearing a well-sclerotized spinous process and two setae 16m 

 and 22m in length. 



Spermatophores not formed in bodies of these small males. 



Color in life, in transmitted light, opaque and grayish, eye not 

 clearly visible. 



Large mature male. — In the following description features not 

 mentioned may be regarded as similar to those of the small male 

 already described. 



Body (fig. 112) elongated, vermiform, and contractile as in small 

 male. Length (without setae on caudal rami) 2.04 mm (1.86-2.21 

 mm) and greatest width 0.46 mm (0.41-0.51 mm), based on 10 speci- 

 mens. (Two other specimens much smaller, 0.69 x 0.18 mm and 

 0.86 x 0.18 mm). Ratio of length of prosome to that of urosome 

 about 2.60:1. 



Four postgenital segments, their separation more distinct than in 

 small male. 



Caudal ramus resembling that of small male but a little longer. 



Ratio of length of prosome to that of urosome (in specimen shown 

 in fig. 112) about 1.43:1. 



Rostrum (figs. 113, 114) similar to that in female and in small male. 



First antenna, second antenna, labrum, and postlabral fold as in 

 small male. Mandibles, paragnaths, and first maxillae absent. 

 Second maxiUae (figs. 113, 115) represented by small well-sclerotized 

 spinous processes. Maxilliped absent. 



Legs 1-3 as in small male. Legs 4 and 5 absent. 



Leg 6 (fig. 112) protruding a Uttle more laterally, edge of postero- 

 ventral flap less sclerotized, and two setae relatively shorter (15m 

 and 18m) than in small male. 



Spermatophores fairly well developed inside about two-thirds of 

 large males. 



