46 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 236 



I faDed to observe differences in the structure of antennae, oral 

 parts, and legs; they are, however, slightly smaller than those of the 

 female. Mandibular praecoxa in my preparation of the male was in a 

 favorable position and consequently it has been figured (fig. 9d). 



Remarks. — The present new form is more or less intermediate 

 between E. robusta Giesbrecht and E. brevicauda Sewell, at least as 

 far as the female is concerned, the male of E. brevicauda being un- 

 known. It shows, in the structure of the appendages, complete 

 conformity with E. robusta and in size it approaches very closely the 

 specimens of that form described by Sewell (1949). It is, however, 

 at once differentiated by the much shorter furcal rami (nearly twice 

 as long as broad and as long as the anal somite in E. pseudorobusta; 

 4 times as long as wide and as long as abdominal somites 4+5 in 

 E. robusta), in which character it closely approaches E. brevicauda. 

 In this species, however, the spines on the endopodite of the legs 

 are of the long and slender type. The short furcal rami occiu" in 

 aU specimens under observation and in all cases are coupled with 

 short spines on the endopodites; I have therefore been forced to 

 describe the species under a new trivial name. In the shape of the 

 cephalothorax too the present form appears to differ from E. brevi- 

 cauda, as a compai'ison between Sewell's figure 3a and my drawings of 

 the whole animal clearly shows. The form of the cephalothorax of 

 E. pseudorobusta approaches the type of body found in E. sewelli 

 (Sewell, 1949, p. 35, fig. 4, as Euryte spec), but in that species the 

 antennules are 18-segmented. 



Euryte pseudorobusta is probably a strict sand-dweUer, inhabiting 

 interstitial water in the sandy beaches of Ifaluk; it occurred exclusively 

 in sand samples taken at various distances from the reef margin. 



Suborder Poecilostoma 

 Family Lichomolgidae G. O. Sars, 1917 



Genus Macrocheiron Brady, 1872 



I have used this genus in the restricted sense defined by Stock (1957) , 

 including only the species Macrocheiron fucicolum Brady, 1872, Pseu- 

 danthessius chelifer Thompson and A. Scott, 1903, and Macrocheiron 

 mutatum Stock, 1957. It seems to me that Stock's conclusion con- 

 cerning the correct spelling of the generic name is not fully justified. 

 The relevant page of Follett's paper (p. 66) to which Stock refers 

 contains a recommendation for transliteration of Greek words when 

 composing a new generic or trivial name. In the present case there 

 is more than one original spelling {Macrochiron used in the text of 

 Brady's 1872 paper and Macrocheiron used in the plates of that paper), 

 whUe the name Macrocheiron is used in the first subsequent publication 



