174 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 121 



esses, both in the 3 collections as a whole and individually, bvit 

 the author attributes this to natural variation, PUlai (1962a, p. 86) 

 points out that the posterior processes on the trunk of his specimens 

 "are more narrowing towards the tip" than those described by Pearse 

 (1952a). Pearse, however, made permanent mounts of his specimens 

 and flattening of the specimens and their component parts has taken 

 place, as evidenced by his figures. 



Brachiella Cuvier, 1829 



Diagnosis. — Female: Cephalothorax elongate, frequently at angle 

 to trunk, anterior region of tergum heavily sclerotized. Trunk 

 swollen, flattened dorsoventrally, with 1 or 2 pairs of posterior proc- 

 esses and single genital process (1 or more of these may be reduced 

 or lacking) ; without recogmizable abdomen or caudal rami. Anten- 

 nule 2-4 segmented, subconical; antennae biramous, exopodite 

 with or without armature, endopodite reduced. MaxLllule with 

 palp; maxillae removed well behind maxillipeds, distaUy united, 

 with bulla. Maxillipeds close to oral region, 2-segmented, second 

 segment with clawlike terminal process. 



Male: Body divisible into prosome (= cephalothorax) and urosome, 

 separated by constriction or internal indication of constriction. 

 Urosome longer than prosome, usually narrower, caudal rami small. 

 Antennule 3-4 segmented, antennae biramous, exopodite 1-segmented, 

 lobate, endopodite 2-segmented. Maxillule similar to that of female; 

 maxilla 2-segmented, tipped with clawlike terminal process. Max- 

 illiped 2-segmented, second segment with clawlike terminal process. 



Brachiella thynni Cuvier 



Figures 66, 67 



B. thynni Cuvier, 1829, p. 257, pi. 15, fig. 5.— Gu^rin-M^neville, 1829-1844, pi. 

 9, fig. 6a-c.— Nordmann, 1832, p. 90.— Milne-Edwards, 1840, p. 512.— 

 Steenstrup and Lutken, 1861, p. 420, pi. 15, fig. 36.— Van Beneden, 1851, 

 p. 128; 1861, p. 153.— Heller, 1866, p. 756.— Van Beneden, 1870a, p. 37; 

 1870b, p. 244.— Vogt, 1877, pi. 3, fig. 9.— Richiardi, 1880, p. 7.— Stossich, 

 1880, p. 268.— Valle, 1880, p. 77.— Carus, 1885, p. 375. Bassett-Smith, 

 1896a, p. 162.— Brian, 1899a, p. 6.— Bassett-Smith, 1899, p. 502.— Brian, 

 1901, p. 1, fig. 1.— Graeffe, 1902, p. 16.— Thompson and Scott, 1903, 

 p. 294.— Stenta, 1904, p. 345.— Miculicich, 1905a, p. 600; 1905b, p. 733.— 

 Rathbun, 1905, p. 102.— Brian, 1905, p. 8; 1906, p. 105, pi. 9, fig. 1.— Scott 

 and Scott, 1913, p. 204, pi. 64, figs. 4-6.— Wilson, 1915, p. 703, pi. 25, fig. C; 

 pi. 53, figs. 209-215.— Leigh-Sharpe, 1926, p. 386.— Kirtisinghe, 1935, 

 p. 342, figs. 40-42.— Bere, 1936, p. 613.— Bonnet, 1948, p. 7.— Causey, 

 1953b, p. 15. — Delamare-Deboutteville and Nunes-Ruivo, 1953, p. 217. — 

 Shiino, 1956b, p. 283, figs. 8-9; 1958, p. 112; 1960b, p. 539.— Pillai, 1962a, 

 p. 81, figs. 15, 16.— Shiino, 1963a, p. 346.— Yamaguti, 1963, p. 247, fig.l.— 

 Kirtisinghe, 1964, p. 119, figs. 171, 172. 



Thynnicola ziegleri Miculicich, 1904, p. 48, figs. 1-3. 



