NO. 1504. AMERICAN PA RASITIC COPEPODS— WILSON. 701 



The spines on the exopods of the second le^s are stout and sharp, 

 and so chitinous that they turn a very deep brown. 



The rami of the third legs are close together and each is two-jointed; 

 the endopod is considerabh' larger than the exopod, unlike the condi- 

 tion in most of the Caligidie, and is closely appressed to the margin 

 of the basal apron. Indeed this ramus is almost exactly like the two 

 terminal joints of the endopod of the second legs. The exopod. on 

 the contrary, is small and short, but has a large bipartite claw or spine 

 on its basal joint. The fourth legs are large and stout, the basal joint 

 much swollen and considerably longer than the three terminal ones, 

 which are onh^ indistinctly separated. The second joint bears a cluster 

 of short spines on its ventral surface near the base, and a longer and 

 stouter spine at the distal end. All three joints carry a fringe of small 

 teeth along their outer margins. Fifth legs entirely wanting. 



Total length, 11 mm.; length of carapace, 5.1 mm.; width of same. 

 1.6 mm.; length of genital segment, 3.1 mm. (including the spiny 

 appendages); length of abdomen, 3.2 mm. 



The egg-strings are a little narrower than the liase of the abdomen, 

 but broken so that no idea can be given of their length. 



Color (of alcoholic specimens) a uniform yellowish gray without 

 pigment; all the chitinous portions were turned a deep russet brown. 

 {oi'natus, ornamented, alluding to the numerous spines and grooves on 

 the dorsal sui-face). 



The species described by Thomson in 1889 as LepeopJdlieirm Imttoni 

 and afterwards rightly transferred by Bassett-Smith (1899) to Gloio- 

 2MjttH is verv similar to the one here described. 



The chief differences lie in the dorsal plates which cover the free 

 segment, in the grooving of the dorsal surface of the carapace, in the 

 fringe of long hair adorning the posterior half of the lateral lobes, and 

 in minor details of the appendages, particularly the first antenna? and 

 the tripartite first maxilla?. 



A careful study of the present specimens and their comparison with 

 those described by Thomson suggest forcibly that he did not have a 

 male and female, as he claimed, but rather two females, one with and 

 and the other without egg-strings. 



The two specimens on which the present species is founded are in 

 the same condition, but they are more nearh' alike, and, furthermore, 

 they resemble the one which he designates as a male much more than 

 they do the female. The only sexual differences which he notes con- 

 sist in a narrowing of the anterior and posterior portions of the bodv 

 in the female and a diminution in the size of the dorsal plates. Such 

 differences might easily be due to unequal shrinkage, Avhich frequently 

 occurs even with specimens in the same vial, as every investigator who 

 handles preserved material knows onh- too well. 



