4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 121 



morphology of Pseudophilomedes. The fact that they state (1896, 

 p. 660) that in their opinion Pseudophilomedes is not sufl&ciently 

 different from Philomedes to warrant the establishment of a new 

 genus and, then, on page 670 estabhsh the new genus Paramekodon 

 for precisely the same reason Miiller established Pseudophilomedes 

 must be attributed to confusion resulting from the unexpected 

 publication of Miiller's work. 



Brady and Norman (1896, p. 665) described a new species, Strepto- 

 leberis Javosa Brady and Norman, 1896, collected at depths of 836 to 

 2333 meters off the west coast of Morocco. From 2 dried specimens 

 they were able to examine only fragments of appendages. Concerning 

 the 2nd antenna, Brady and Norman (loc. cit.) commented: "The 

 antennae resemble most closely in character the same organs in 

 Paramekodon, having no appendicular branch but two setae in its 

 place, the basal joint somewhat smaller than usual, the length ex- 

 ceeding the breadth, first joint of the swimming branch rather slender." 

 Fragments of the furca were illustrated by Brady and Norman (ibid, 

 pi. 62, figs. 20, 21). The distribution of strong and slender claws on 

 the lamella is similar to that of the genus Pseudophilomedes and also 

 to some species in the genus Euphilomedes Poidsen, 1962. Claw no. 1 

 of the furca has a large tooth near the middle of the convex margin 

 and bears short spines between the tooth and the tip of the claw. 

 The claw is quite similar to claw no. 1 on species of Pseudophilomedes. 

 Streptoleheris javosa is probably closely related to Pseudophilomedes 

 and may belong in that genus. Streptoleheris crenulata (Brady, 1890), 

 the type species of the genus, is known only from its shell and belongs 

 in the category "genera dubia et species dubia" (Miiller, 1912, p. 15; 

 Poulsen, 1965, p. 44). Streptoleheris rectirostris Brady and Norman, 

 1896, the third species that has been referred to Streptoleheris, is also 

 known only from the shell and Miiller (1912, pi. 51) correctly consid- 

 ered it as a species dubia. 



At the present state of our knowledge there seems little reason for 

 considering the present subfamily Philomedinae to be more closely 

 related to the Cypridininae than to other subfamilies comprising the 

 Cypridinacea. Therefore, the subfamily Philomedmae is raised to 

 familial rank. Some distinguishing characters between females of 

 the Philomedidae and Pseudophilomedidae are as follows: 



Philomedidae Pseudophilomedidae 



Shell, no. of medial bristles behind rostrum 6+ 4^5 



1st ant. 2nd joint, no. of bristles 2-3 1 



2nd ant. endop., no. of joints 1-2 1 



2nd ant. endop., no. of bristles 6+ 2-4 



2nd ant. exop. 9th joint, no. of bristles 4-7 2-3 



Mandible, basale, no. of medial plus ventral bristles 10+ 4 



Mandible, endop. 2nd joint, no. of dorsal bristles 8+ 4 



