398 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL IMUSEUM vol. 99 



the terminal segment is shared with several more recently described 

 species. 



Heri^mannella was established by Canii, 1891. Its distinction from 

 Paranthessius was implied by the author's statements and Diogeni- 

 dium M-as represented as differing generically by the configuration of 

 the mid-region of the body and the nature of the mouth parts. In 

 its particulars his cliaracterization of Herrmannella and his species 

 H. rostrata is a description of a generalized Paranthessius. His 

 claimed differentation from Diogenidluin is not supportable, and any 

 treatment that removed P. anemoniae Claus to separate rank would 

 have to admit the priority of Diogenidiwni over Hemnannella. 



Canu, in his impressive monograph of 1892, republished his diag- 

 nosis of H. rostrata., amplified and illustrated, and stated specifically 

 his bases for separation of the genus from Parardhessius — the anten- 

 nule, maxilla, and the fourth endopodite. He repeated here his 

 vague differentiation from Diogenidium., admitting the close relation- 

 ship of the genera, the situation paralleling, in his statement, the 

 resemblance of Paranthessius to Anthessius. 



The subsequent synonymy of Paranthessius involves a number of 

 obvious misinterpretations, most of the authors usually bringing 

 forward subsequent corrections. One feature lending a certain flavor 

 to this synonymy is the variety of lapses in transcription of Herrmann- 

 tlla^ its author himself leading off the distinguished procession of 

 those dropping out one or another of the improbable-appearing 

 doubled consonants. 



Most of the species described for the genus have been instituted 

 under Herrmannella (Scott, Thompson and Scott, Sars). In these 

 treatments a frequent error was the inclusion in the generic concept 

 of species more properly assignable to Anthessius. This error probably 

 was due to the condition of the fourth endopodite, the segmentation, 

 as we have seen, being the same in the two genera. 



The name Pseudolichomolgus was proposed twice for representa- 

 tives of Paranthessius. I am convinced that specimens in my collec- 

 tion are either identical with Pseudolichomolgus columMae Thompson 

 (which was an immature stage) or are representatives of an exceed- 

 ingly closely related species. In the adult condition these specimens 

 can be assigned without question to Paranthessius (see further dis- 

 cussion under species) . 



Sars' concept (1918) of IlermanneUa (sic) would apply, in general, 

 from evidence of species considered, to Paranthessius as here defined, 

 except for his mention, in discussion only, of H. maxim-a (Thompson) , 

 a synonym of Modiolicola inermis Canu. Sars had never seen speci- 

 mens of this species. His generic diagnosis is very superficial, hardly 

 serving more than to establish the genus in the Lichomolgidae 

 and to differentiate it weakly from Modiolicola {M. insignis Aurivil- 



