242 BULLETIN 2 01, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



It is impossible to escape from the conclusion that we are dealing 

 here with a single species with a geographical range extending from 

 British Columbia to Panama on the west coast of America. Conse- 

 quently I record these specimens as H. odontops Walker, with H. spi- 

 nosus Holmes, as a synonym. I give here figures of the main append- 

 ages in the Panama specimens for comparison with those published 

 for the other two species. (Figs. 102, ctr-c; 103, a-b.) 



I have already expressed the opinion that Walker's figure of the 

 antennal scale in his species is not correct, considering the characters 

 in table 8. It is easy to understand the appearance depicted by Walker 

 if the setae of the inner margin are folded under the lamina of the 

 scale, and this is very likely to occur in manipulating the specimen 

 for examination under a microscope. I do not think the inner margin 

 of the scale in Walker's specimen was really without setae, and this 

 supposed difference may be ignored. 



With regard to the eye there is a distinct blunt process in all the 

 Panama specimens. It is not so acutely pointed as shown by Walker. 



I have examined the uropods of the Panama specimens very care- 

 fully and cannot detect more than one spine on the inner margin of 

 the inner uropod near the statocyst. Since Holmes gives no particu- 

 lars of the eye or uropods of his species, direct comparison is impos- 

 sible. 



In the Panama specimens the sixth joint of the endopod of the fourth 

 thoracic limbs is 4- jointed and in the fifth to the eighth limbs it is 

 7- or 8- jointed. This agrees with Walker. Holmes gives the number 

 of articulations in this joint as 8 to 10. 



The endopod of the third thoracic limbs agrees substantially with 

 both Walker and Holmes. The number of spines on the lower margins 

 of the carpus varies, but it is generally about four pairs arranged in 

 two rows. The limb is more robust in the male than in the female 

 but otherwise it is the same in general form and armature. The 

 propodal jont is much smaller and less evident than in H. formosa. 



SPECIES NOT REPRESENTED IN THE COLLECTIONS OF THE UNITED 

 STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



LOPHOGASTER HAWAIENSIS Fage 



Lophogaster hawaiensis Fage, 1940, p. 323. 



Occurrence.— Hawaii : Albatross stations 3847*, 3857*, 3858*, 3884*, 

 3965*, and 4101*, identified by Ortmann. 



Distribution. — Hawaii. 



Remarks. — The paper in which Fage described this species (men- 

 tioned also in Biological Abstracts, No. 5837) is unavailable both in 

 England and America and the assignment of the name to the material 



