NO. 3574 COPEPOD CRUSTACEANS — LEWIS 41 



the terminal elements more broadly spaced on the exopodite and 

 having 3 short, spinelike projections in addition to the 3 setae figured 

 for both species). The variation present in the angle of the f ureal 

 tines, the rather confusing picture given by the terminal elements on 

 the second segment of the exopodite of the first thoracic leg (fig. 156), 

 the similarity of the general body shape and particularly the first 

 abdominal segment (which is considered, by this author, to be of 

 taxonomic significance in this genus and in the genus Elytrophora) , 

 in addition to the similarity of other body parts described and figured 

 in the original descriptions suggest that the two species are conspecific. 

 The reasons given by Steenstrup and Liitken (1861) for separating 

 Euryphorus nympha from E. nordmanni Milne-Edwards are : 



1. E. nordmanni has a better developed pair of antennules than 

 E. nympha. 



2. The specimens in the Paris museum {E. nordmanni) were 

 from the "Asiatic" ocean while E. nympha was described from material 

 collected in the subtropical Atlantic. 



Kner (1859) described E. nordmanni from fish captured off Zanzibar. 

 Steenstrup and Liitken, however, did not feel that Kner had sufficient 

 material or sufficient experience (based at least partially on his 

 misinterpretation of the first thoracic legs) to identify his specimens 

 properly and felt that his material was E. nympha. 



Specimens identified as either E. nympha or E. coryphaenae have 

 been reported from most of the tropical and subtropical regions of the 

 world (Japan, Indian Ocean, Atlantic, West Indies, Gulf of Mexico). 

 The distribution of E. nympha (recognizing E. coryp)haenae as a syno- 

 nym of this species) appears to parallel that of the principal host, 

 Coryphaena hippurus Linnaeus. The host that Milne-Edward's and 

 Kner's specimens came from is unknown and E. nordmanni has been 

 reported only once, from Coryphaenae hippurus, since Kner's publi- 

 cation (Ku-tisinghe, 1937). Even this report was later believed 

 erroneous, Kirtisinghe (1964 and personal communication) feeling 

 that his specimens should have been identified as E. nympha. 



The validity of E. nympha appears to be dependent upon the 

 absence of the host name in the original description of E. nordmanni, 

 the different locality from which E. nordmanni was collected, and 

 the belief that E. nordmanni has a better developed pan- of anten- 

 nules. There even appears to have been some question, by Steen- 

 strup and Liitken (1861), as to whether their species, E. nympha, 

 was distinct. The following is a translation of the second footnote 

 on page 366 of their 1861 publication: 



There is, unfortunately, an almost complete lack of precedent as to whether 

 or not we can refuse to equate an animal type to one already described in the 

 literature just because one is from the Atlantic and one from the Indian Ocean. 



