516 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. ii7 



half as long as article 6, curved, with a small inner bump near base, 

 hindedge of article 6 and palm fringed with long setae; coxa 4 only 

 slightly concave on its hind edge; pereopods 1 and 2 with one or two 

 large striated distal spines on article 6, like some species of Hyale. 



Holotype: USNM 107572, male, 3.3 mm. 



Type locahty: Reish station E-120, Eniwetok Atoll, Sept. 7, 1956. 



Material: 3 specimens from the type locality. 



Remarks: In many respects this species resembles Elasmopus 

 ecuadorensis or E. pectenicrus, from precursors of which this species 

 might have evolved by loss of the mandibular palp, reduction of the 

 inner ramus of uropod 3, shortening of the telson and the fusion of 

 its lobes. This degeneration of morphological characters of an animal 

 obviously stemming from the Gammaridae is most remarkable. 



Distribution : Eniwetok Atoll, Marshall Islands. 



Family Hyalidae 



The genus Parallorchestes Shoemaker (1941) is not a synonym of 

 Parhyale, as followed by Bulycheva (1957) ; in fact, according to her 

 partitioning of the Talitridae into three families, Talitridae, Hyalidae, 

 and Hyalellidae, the genus Parallorchestes by its possession of a bi- 

 articulate first maxillary palp should be removed from the genus 

 Parhyale in the Hyalidae to the Talitridae proper. There it differs 

 from the four known genera Talitrus, Talorchestia, Orchestia, and 

 Orchestoidea by its biramous third uropod, the inner ramus being very 

 small. The genus Neobule, poorly described and unrecovered since 

 its description by HasweU (1879a) is not assignable, as yet, to any 

 family. 



Bulycheva's redescription of Parhyale zibillina contradicts Shoe- 

 maker's (1956) note that the species might belong to Parallorchestes; 

 with its simple first maxillary palp it belongs with Parhyale in the 

 family Hyalidae. 



Genus Hyale Rathke 



With 43 valid species and 15 dubious species, this genus poses 

 problems of identification because of its simplified morphology and 

 the lack of ornamentation. 



Principal features of specific morphological variation lie in the 

 lengths of the antennae, the stoutness of antenna 2, the shapes of the 

 gnathopods, and the presence or absence of stout striated spines on 

 the sixth articles of pereopods 1-5. 



Defects in classification lie in the poor knowledge of growth stages 

 particularly in species such as H. macrodactyla and H. chevreuxi where 

 the adult male second gnathopods have palms confluent with the 

 hindmargins of article 6 and possibly develop this condition from 



