NO. 3E41 BENTHIC AMPHIPODA — BARNARD 21 



Protomedeia penates, new species 



Figure 3 



Diagnosis of male: Article 2 of gnathopod 1 lacking posterodistal 

 swelling; article 7 of gnathopod 1 overlapping palm by more than 

 75 percent of its length, palm with triangular process and defined by- 

 one stout spine; palm of gnathopod 2 with defining tooth exceeding 

 transverse palm and bearing small basal tooth anterior to it; inner 

 ramus of uropod 3 slightly shorter than outer ramus. 



Female: Gnathopods with oblique palms defined by large spines. 



Notes: Article 2 of pereopod 5 has a small dorsoposterior tooth; 

 pleonal epimeron 3 bears lateral setae, variable in extent and often 

 absent, especially in males. 



Holotype: Allan Hancock Foundation no. 5923, male 6.0 mm. 



Type locality: White Gulch, Tomales Bay, California, sta. 1-59-10, 

 June 29, 1959, depth of 48 feet, on dark sand and mud, associated 

 mth Chone and Pectinaria, collected by Dr. Joel W. Hedgpeth and 

 Dr. Ralph G. Johnson, 8 specimens. 



Material: 6455 (4). 



Relationship: Morphologically, this species is most closely related 

 to Protomedeia fasciatoides Bulycheva (1952) but differs in having a 

 longer palmar tooth of male gnathopod 2 and oblique palms on the 

 female gnathopods. The absence of a posterodistal prominence on 

 article 2 of gnathopod 1 distinguishes P. penates from P. fasciafa 

 Kr0yer (Sars, 1895, pi. 196), a species having a distinctive aspect as 

 illustrated by Gurjanova (1951). The largest male, 7.0 mm, from 

 station 6455, is obviously fuUy mature and lacks the gnathopodal 

 prominence. Protomedeia popovi Gurjanova (1951) is also similar to 

 P. penates, but the male has a more oblique gnathopodal palm lack- 

 ing the subsidiary palmar tooth. 



Distribution: Tomales Bay to Monterey Bay, CaHfornia, 15-76 m. 



Family Ischyroceridae 



Ischyrocerus litotes (Barnard) 



Ischyrocerus litotes— BarnaTd, 1962a, pp. 53-56, figs. 23, 24; 1964a, pp. 226-227. 



Material: 6425 (1). 



Remarks: I may have been in error in removing this species from 

 its original position in Microjassa because of the slight difference in 

 size of coxae 5 and 6. As in Microjassa, coxa 1 of this species is 

 small in contrast to members of Ischyrocerus. Both genera prob- 

 ably should be emended to permit /. litotes to be included with 



